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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Since [redacted] is saying that no rape actually took place, and has evidence that he says backs this up, I think we should have a See Also section with a link to False accusation of rape in it. Cla68 ( talk) 23:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. The only way an encyclopedia should call an accused rape, rape, is after a guilty verdict in a trial. This case has absolutely no chance of that. It never even made it to a court docket NPOV Ninja ( talk) 23:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Request would be a violation of
WP:BLPSEEALSO. To quote, Similarly, "See also" links should not be used to imply any contentious categorization or claim about a living person.
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}}
05:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Cla,my decision is based on the very clear rules for how to respond to edit requests. However, in the interest of fairness,and because it's not exactly a secret that you and I really don't care for each other, you are welcome to re-submit this request with the proper {{ editprotected}} template and see if another admin sees it differently than I do. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Sahrah you were here. You edited the talk page. Isn't that lying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.252.116 ( talk) 07:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The article has been blanked by an editor as a BLP violation although I'm not sure that is a valid judgment as this article has already been the subject of much debate and discussion to arrive at the state it was at. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You want the office involved, go for it, but simply blanking the article and being vaguely threatening is not an appropriate course of action. If there is libelous material in the article, please contact me or use WP:RFO to get it dealt with. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, and for the last time, I am going to have no part in enabling any further misuse of Wikipedia - if the libellous material is restored, I will contact the individual concerned, and advise them of the appropriate legal measures to take. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
There are clearly some issues with the page, but the bulk of the stuff that was removed doesn't seem remotely controversial -- why are well sourced materials detailing the performance or the subsequent lawsuit being excised? These aren't even contested. Nblund ( talk) 22:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at my talk page. I may have been snarky but I know BS when I see it. Admins used their powers against me in an abusive manner. Does an Admin actually expect me to think that he/she really thought he/she was being intellectually honest? To do so would be an insult to my intelligence. Especially since my point was proven - nobody wanted this page to be showed to anyone except for a clique of certain Admins. Why else would they not answer? They knew; they kept repeating the same thing over again. They even had the nerve to tell me that I should have been friendlier. It's disgusting how these people actually think they're right. They've gotten caught in the act and they're upset. NPOV Ninja ( talk) 23:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I've given NPOV Ninja a break due to their over-the-top behavior today. I have also been looking over the sources in the pre-blanked state of the article and they seem to be of pretty high quality. Newsweek had his name right in the headline of their story and used it many times, and the lawyer people are talking about contacting apparently spoke directly to the Newsweek reporter and is quoted several times. Now, I am a member of the oversight team and committed to removing anything libelous from Wikiepdia, but I can't do it if nobody can point out where it is. I would again ask that anyone who is honest in their desire to have libel removed from the article and its history either email me directly or use WP:RFO. If it's there, we want it to be gone, but we are not an investigative body, you need to bring the evidence to us. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Discuss the article, not the editors. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Kaldari. Please do not modify it. |
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism#Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). -- 82.113.98.179 ( talk) 15:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC) This isn't trying to take over discussion. This is taking the discussion to other feminists. They were invited to comment on this page BY an admin. For their points to be valid they need to go visit the "last good article". I gagged a little calling it "good" but that's what it had to be called. I'd like everyone to know about the user policies regarding IP addresses. Just because people use them, does not mean there's an automatic sockpuppet. I'd like to remind you Wikipedia:IPs are human too before you assume bad faith and call me a sockpuppet which I am not. Many people have been watching Wikipedia without editing after the last feminist controversy. LOTS of people who don't edit wikipedia are aware of it. I.E. a certain community. This does not change the fact that feminists have been caught lying through their teeth in enforcing this article. To ask anyone to assume good faith at this point is almost an insult to his or her intelligence. See for yourself. Sloppy work. 96.225.126.239 ( talk) 16:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC) On top of it, maybe the new user wouldn't have been so accusatory if the first comment he received was from an admin, on this page, was an NPOV violation. Seriously? Go up and see for yourself. No help no direction just a warning about NPOV on a talk page. I'm going to assume that she didn't take the time to look at the claims seriously. That just shows that there's an agenda behind the editing here and not a search for truth. It's so obvious. To shut someone up because they don't know the rules is pointless. I'll stop my commentary after this. I mean really. Just because someone can post doesn't mean they should, and I'm not talking about the banned new user. 96.225.126.239 ( talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Actually no.
Really? That's the best response? It shows the state of mind of these people 96.225.126.239 ( talk) 16:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Made an account to prove I'm not a sockpuppet. See why I'm taking a break in the logs. I refuse to say that the people who did this were not feminists because they were motivated by a force that refuses to answer to logic, and the page was in concert with their ideology... SoSadddd ( talk) 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph of the Reception section, please replace:
[[Suzanne Lacy]] and Leslie Liebowitz's ''Three Weeks in May'' (1977)
with:
[[Suzanne Lacy]] and [[Leslie Labowitz-Starus]]'s ''[[Three Weeks in May]]'' (1977)
This corrects a misspelled name and links two articles. gobonobo + c 12:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Leslie Labowitz-Starus Links to the mentioned article properly. How can you claim that this is a good article when you don't know the proper name of it. It isn't a good article. I can say this with absolute confidence because of Wikipedia:Good articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.126.239 ( talk) 15:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually neither of these articles are. Where did SineBot go? 96.225.126.239 ( talk) 16:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
We can't write an article on the rape allegations because it's a BLP minefield. We don't and can't know what happened, and the accused is innocent as far as WP is concerned. For every allegation, someone will add a counter-allegation, and given the nature and number of them the article will spiral out of control.
The issues that gained publicity were the artwork and the dispute about the university's obligations, whether to the accused or accuser. That's one of the reasons the accused's lawyer decided to sue the university, not the accuser. So I suggest we give a very brief summary of the allegations, but otherwise focus on the impact of the artwork (but we should tone down the praise, and concentrate on the dispute about art versus bullying), the implications of the lawsuit (but not the details), and the issue of the university's conflicting obligations. Sarah (SV) (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think Sarah (SV)'s suggestion of PC2 protection might be good idea for a while because ever since the accused student filed the lawsuit, the page has been inundated with vandalism and BLP violations. The page seems at risk for becoming an attack page on Sulkowicz in violation of BLP. There are lots of new editors and IP's editing disruptively: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 21:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered...Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors at a disadvantage... The purpose of reviewing is to catch and filter out obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits on articles under pending changes protection...Reviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept. A reviewer only ensures that the changes introduced to the article are broadly acceptable for viewing by a casual reader.
I second the above motion. Especially considering sahrah did edit the talk mage over the weekend.
Sar Hrah you were wat chicken in this talk article Look at your only edit on it over this weekend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.252.116 ( talk) 07:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
What I meant to say was that Sarah made an edit over this weekend. If she felt this way why did she wait so long to do this? So long meaning until the page was protected. Also the circumstances of the case were totally different when the article first came out. I'd like to say a conspiracy theory sounds crazy but assuming good faith is getting harder and harder. People who feel so strongly about this now need to move off the page. If the article was notable when it first came on here the topic is notable now. If we're going to talk about lies on here I might as well say one that's a whopper 166.137.252.81 ( talk) 08:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia had a did you know for this woman. We need to make it right. Just because she feels that way does not mean she is right. We meed to judge her case on her own merits. She's trying to scare people into shutting up by calling them rape deniers. Rape is a horrible crime. She's taking advantage of that fact. Her own quotes are only digging her in now that another side of the story is known. Applying critical thinking skills to her case does not make me a rape denier. It would if she was tried In a court of law and not public opinion. She never could and it's no secret why. This article should be on here considering all the politicans that supported her. I never knew that before. I wonder if they're kicking themselves now? Hillary Clinton is running for president after all. 166.137.252.23 ( talk) 08:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Links to that with good sources for the politicans will be found in prior versions of this article. If it was In the obviously biased article it needs to be in the one to be. Another note: repressive tolerance is a good say of describing what happened to this article even if the person who made the comparisons was a jerk, if this is the reason why all proposed edits not favorable to her were protected in the name of that could not stand logic. Wikipedia is not Rolling Stone, which has become a punchline in some jokes for similar reasons
166.137.252.81 ( talk) 08:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the first line of the overview section is a little factually confused. Sulkowicz began to work with a mattress for a video made at the Yale Norfolk Artist Residency in the summer of 2014. Sulkowicz then continued to work with the mattress when she returned to Columbia in the fall. At this point she began Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) by caring the mattress with her around the Columbia campus. The project then became her senior thesis at Columbia, not at Yale. Summer academic residencies dont usually have a senior thesis. Bipandboppop ( talk) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to comment, a lot of the Wikipedia policy arguments for not naming this guy in the article went out the window the minute he filed a lawsuit. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change from "accused" to "suspected". The term accused is ambiguous. He was never charged (the district attorney's office declined to pursue the case) nor did he face a criminal trial (only a fruitless university inquiry).-- 82.113.106.150 ( talk) 13:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Former suspect. Would be appropriate. He isn't suspected any longer.-- Cyve ( talk) 17:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. Continue to discuss and if a consensus is reached then reactivate the request. --
GB
fan
19:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Full text: [15].-- Cyve ( talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
'The lawsuit even argues it was Sulkowicz herself who first broached the possibility of anal sex with [redacted], even though claims of forced anal sex are central to her claim of rape.
[1]
Should this be included in the lawsuit section? 206.248.138.62 ( talk) 06:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the lawsuit section has been deleted in its entirety. I think that at the very least the April 2015 lawsuit against Columbia and Sulkowicz’s Art Professor Kessler should be mentioned. Why is this relevant to the art performance itself? It is relevant because the federal complaint alleges at Paragraph 68 that this was not an art performance but a personal vendetta "under the guise of performance art." The complaint further alleges that the Mattress Project was not about art but about stalking (Paragraph 70) and that Columbia approved the project and has publicly endorsed it and effectively sponsored it (Paragraph 71, 98, 141). Ultimately, the plaintiff alleges the Mattress Project constituted gender-based harassment against him in violation of Title IX (Paragraph 77). Whether or not the allegations prove to be true or false, the fact is that this art performance project has given rise to a lawsuit. That should, at a minimum, qualify a lawsuit mention under the RECEPTION heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.243.242 ( talk) 00:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
”there were no witnesses to the alleged assault, and there’s no physical evidence." [16] -- 82.113.98.7 ( talk) 12:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the quotes of Jerry, who praised Sulkowicz, and his wife Roberta, who interviewed Sulkowicz. Both for the New York newspaper Times, which often quotes Sulkowicz's father Kerry, whose employees advise Sulkowicz.-- 82.113.98.242 ( talk) 18:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To bring this up to date, two edits would be helpful.
1. In the lead, to restore (roughly) what was there, please add this to the end of the second paragraph:
In April 2015 he filed a sexual-discrimination lawsuit against Columbia, its trustees, president Lee Bollinger and Sulkowicz's supervising art professor, Jon Kessler, alleging that, in allowing the art project to go ahead, they exposed him to gender-based harassment. [2]
2. To the Reception section, please add to the end of the first paragraph (after "He also noted that, as the work serves as Sulkowicz's senior thesis, it is being supervised by a Columbia faculty member"):
In April 2015 he filed a lawsuit against the university, its board of trustees, its president, Lee Bollinger, and Sulkowicz's senior-thesis supervisor, Jon Kessler, alleging that they exposed him to gender-based harassment and a hostile educational environment in allowing the art project to go ahead. He maintains that in so doing they damaged his college experience, emotional well-being, reputation and career prospects. [2]
Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Administrator note Not sure if there is agreement here yet. Please continue the discussion and reactivate is necessary. Regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Does anyone have a good source aside from this person mentioned, to still say that the article should be called an "art piece", and not "Emma Sulkowicz rape allegations" ? I honestly think it should be proposed as a move, along with a major overhaul of the article for purposes of clarity and NPOV. OhWhyNot ( talk) 02:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, edited for clarity. How Ironic. But the point still stands... OhWhyNot ( talk) 04:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
This being why this article has been here for so long in this state - maybe - but the reason why Emma went to the police and did this? Most likely. OhWhyNot ( talk) 06:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Absurd. OhWhyNot ( talk) 07:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
What about Tawana Brawley rape allegations? OhWhyNot ( talk) 07:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps useful quotes, but this discussion is already irredeemably poisoned. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 21:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"If we use proof in rape cases, we fall into the patterns of rape deniers." [17] "If we keep trying to 'prove that it exists' we will never get anywhere." [18] Emma Sulkowicz, Metcalf Auditorium, Brown University, April 16, 2015 ( [19] [20]) -- 88.70.11.79 ( talk) 06:29,
Emma Sulkowicz, Senior Wisdom ( [21]) -- 88.70.11.79 ( talk) 12:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why did you delete criticism? Why may only praise be mentioned? Why not criticism? It's not neutral. Read your own rule Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight! -- 88.70.11.79 ( talk) 11:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. Please discuss with other editors on this page — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Anon refers to this:
The accused student said in a December 2014 interview with The New York Times that the mattress performance is not an act of artistic expression, but instead one orchestrated to bully him and force him to leave Columbia. He said that on the National Day of Action, protesters followed him around, carrying mattresses to one of his classes and taking his picture. He also said that he was not permitted to use written communications between himself and the alleged victim as evidence, and expressed disbelief that anyone could believe he was guilty even after his accusers failed to meet what he deemed the low burden of proof in the university hearing process.
[1] He also stated that since Sulkowicz's protest serves as her senior thesis, it is being supervised and implicitly endorsed by a Columbia faculty member.
[1] His lawyer added that Senator Gillibrand failed to adequately investigate his accuser's account before appearing with her and that she "[took] a fictional event and [built] an entire platform around it".
[2]
Asked by German
Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin about her feelings on the treatment of her son at Columbia, his mother said, "This is a feeling of lawlessness." His father said that he sometimes fears his son will leave the school as a "cynic" and a "suspicious man".
[3]
The
New York Post's Naomi Schaefer Riley criticized Sulkowicz's work as "shaming without proof" and accused her and her supporters of "saving themselves from having to answer any questions and destroying men's lives with lies and innuendo."
[4] In his article If anything’s art, art’s nothing,
National Post columnist
Robert Fulford compared Sulkowicz's work to that of
Megumi Igarashi and concluded, "if everything is art, then art can be used for anything. And in the process meaning and value dissolve and art becomes hopelessly debased."
[5]
Glenn Reynolds, law professor at the
University of Tennessee, wrote on his political blog
Instapundit: "It would have been nice if Senator Kirsten Gillibrand hadn't joined the lynch mob, embracing Sulkowicz and calling [the accused student] a 'rapist' even after he was cleared by two different proceedings (one of which required only a preponderance of the evidence to convict)".
[6]
-- Cyve ( talk) 23:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
To correct
WP:UNDUE a bit we should add the quote (green text) to the reception section after the fourth paragraph. The opposition should be heard too. As of May 4 there was consensus about this text. Until now no one contradicted. --
Cyve (
talk)
22:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
As was the case months ago, it's rather silly that the article devotes major space to detailing various activist histrionics and posturing, as well as fluffy supportive commentary from non-notable art people — which of course studiously avoids the question of whether the accusation has any truth or merit — while carefully omitting actual notable published commentary that calls the accuser's credibility into question. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
CUMB seemed to make a lot of people uncomfortable when it focused on No Red Tape’s projections on Low Library and criticized both NRT and the media for “reducing” their movement to a “single case.” ...they did point out how “click-baity” a lot of the news coverage has been, and how the administration still doesn’t seem to be doing anything. [23] Ms. Matlow noted that No Red Tape itself had mocked artwork as an inadequate option for fulfilling the sexual respect requirement. “Unless it involves a mattress,” she added, a reference to Emma Sulkowicz, a Columbia senior who, as part of her visual arts thesis, has carried a mattress with her everywhere she has gone on campus to protest the university’s handling of her claim that a fellow student raped her in her dorm room. The line drew a few boos, and then some cheers. One art critic was not so amused! Ms. Sulkowicz, who figured in several other jokes about her status as a poster child for sexual assault on campus, did not attend Orgo Night. But she said in an interview that she was hurt and disappointed in the band. “I guess they don’t really know anything about how a survivor would feel, to get totally made fun of in front of the entire school,” she said. [24] Columbia, May 7. [25] -- 82.113.106.146 ( talk) 12:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The article isn't about how people mocked her. It is about her allegations and her "art piece". Talking about survivors of rape should have it's own article, and, to be frank, not piggyback on her... performance, to keep it civil.
Sketches0993 (
talk)
03:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems rather bizarre that a bullying campaign is being labeled "performance art". A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like for the "not responsible" to be replaced with "exonerated" (no quotations). Wikipedia has been promoting this girl's propaganda for much too long now. This girl's need for attention is a huge blow to real rape victims. Please, please, please stop insinuating that the guy actually did rape her. If that is the case (which I suspect it is not), wikipedia is only discouraging true rape victims from coming forward. Stop painting this girl in such a wonderfully pathetic light and allow users, such as myself, to edit her page so that the public knows the truth.
Sincerely, A true rape victim who lives in New York CIty D.morganbarry ( talk) 20:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the quote marks (if that is indeed the conclusion of the discussion above, because I got a little lost.) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that his parents released this statement:
"Our son's graduation should have been a joyous moment for our whole family. We are extremely proud of Paul for graduating, even more so because of the harassment campaign he was subjected to. For over two years, he had to fight false accusations and a public witch-hunt, even though Columbia and the NYPD exonerated him. At graduation, Columbia University again broke its own rules and afforded Emma Sulkowicz a special exception. It was the second devastating experience in just a few days: Last week, Columbia exhibited Emma Sulkowicz's highly disturbing and extremely graphic drawings of our son publicly on campus. We have come to realize that at Columbia, not all are equal before its policy. What is the point of internal investigations if their outcome is not accepted? Instead those with better connections and more influence promoted a false narrative. While they failed at their goal of bullying our son into leaving this university, they have turned his life into a nightmare. Responsible for this nightmare is not just the woman, who received an academic degree for the attempt to shame Paul away from campus, but even more at fault is the University that conferred this degree. A university that bows to a public witch-hunt no longer deserves to be called a place of enlightenment, of intellectual and academic freedom. By failing to intervene in this injustice, Columbia ceases to be a place where critical thinking, courage and democratic practice are taught, learned and lived. Two years ago we would have never believed that one of the world's most prestigious universities would not only allow such harassment but explicitly support it on its campus. This has been a deeply humiliating experience. We are very proud of our son for graduating from college, but our memory of it will always be tainted by Columbia's wrongdoing." [30] [31] [32] [33]-- 82.113.106.162 ( talk) 23:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggested edits to add details and change the tense in the first paragraph of the lead, now that the work has ended. The second paragraph is unchanged except for some copy editing.
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (2014–2015) was a work of endurance performance art by Emma Sulkowicz carried out during the final year of her visual arts degree at Columbia University. [1] Created in September 2014 for her senior thesis, the piece involved Sulkowicz carrying a 50lb, extra-long, dark-blue mattress wherever she went on campus, until a student she alleges sexually assaulted her was expelled from or otherwise left the university. [2] Both students graduated in May 2015, which brought the work to an end. Sulkowicz carried the mattress to her graduation ceremony. [3]
Art critic Jerry Saltz included Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) in his list of the best art shows of 2014, calling it "pure radical vulnerability." [4] The accused student, who was found "not responsible" by a university inquiry, called Sulkowicz's allegations "untrue and unfounded" and Mattress Performance an act of bullying. [5] [6] In April 2015 he filed a sexual-discrimination lawsuit against the university and its trustees, as well as its president, Lee Bollinger, and Sulkowicz's supervising art professor, Jon Kessler. The lawsuit alleges that, in allowing the art project to go ahead, they exposed the accused to gender-based harassment. [7]
Saltz
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).lawsuit
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:25, 21 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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Since [redacted] is saying that no rape actually took place, and has evidence that he says backs this up, I think we should have a See Also section with a link to False accusation of rape in it. Cla68 ( talk) 23:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. The only way an encyclopedia should call an accused rape, rape, is after a guilty verdict in a trial. This case has absolutely no chance of that. It never even made it to a court docket NPOV Ninja ( talk) 23:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Request would be a violation of
WP:BLPSEEALSO. To quote, Similarly, "See also" links should not be used to imply any contentious categorization or claim about a living person.
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}}
05:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Cla,my decision is based on the very clear rules for how to respond to edit requests. However, in the interest of fairness,and because it's not exactly a secret that you and I really don't care for each other, you are welcome to re-submit this request with the proper {{ editprotected}} template and see if another admin sees it differently than I do. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Sahrah you were here. You edited the talk page. Isn't that lying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.252.116 ( talk) 07:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The article has been blanked by an editor as a BLP violation although I'm not sure that is a valid judgment as this article has already been the subject of much debate and discussion to arrive at the state it was at. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You want the office involved, go for it, but simply blanking the article and being vaguely threatening is not an appropriate course of action. If there is libelous material in the article, please contact me or use WP:RFO to get it dealt with. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, and for the last time, I am going to have no part in enabling any further misuse of Wikipedia - if the libellous material is restored, I will contact the individual concerned, and advise them of the appropriate legal measures to take. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
There are clearly some issues with the page, but the bulk of the stuff that was removed doesn't seem remotely controversial -- why are well sourced materials detailing the performance or the subsequent lawsuit being excised? These aren't even contested. Nblund ( talk) 22:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at my talk page. I may have been snarky but I know BS when I see it. Admins used their powers against me in an abusive manner. Does an Admin actually expect me to think that he/she really thought he/she was being intellectually honest? To do so would be an insult to my intelligence. Especially since my point was proven - nobody wanted this page to be showed to anyone except for a clique of certain Admins. Why else would they not answer? They knew; they kept repeating the same thing over again. They even had the nerve to tell me that I should have been friendlier. It's disgusting how these people actually think they're right. They've gotten caught in the act and they're upset. NPOV Ninja ( talk) 23:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I've given NPOV Ninja a break due to their over-the-top behavior today. I have also been looking over the sources in the pre-blanked state of the article and they seem to be of pretty high quality. Newsweek had his name right in the headline of their story and used it many times, and the lawyer people are talking about contacting apparently spoke directly to the Newsweek reporter and is quoted several times. Now, I am a member of the oversight team and committed to removing anything libelous from Wikiepdia, but I can't do it if nobody can point out where it is. I would again ask that anyone who is honest in their desire to have libel removed from the article and its history either email me directly or use WP:RFO. If it's there, we want it to be gone, but we are not an investigative body, you need to bring the evidence to us. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Discuss the article, not the editors. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Kaldari. Please do not modify it. |
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism#Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). -- 82.113.98.179 ( talk) 15:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC) This isn't trying to take over discussion. This is taking the discussion to other feminists. They were invited to comment on this page BY an admin. For their points to be valid they need to go visit the "last good article". I gagged a little calling it "good" but that's what it had to be called. I'd like everyone to know about the user policies regarding IP addresses. Just because people use them, does not mean there's an automatic sockpuppet. I'd like to remind you Wikipedia:IPs are human too before you assume bad faith and call me a sockpuppet which I am not. Many people have been watching Wikipedia without editing after the last feminist controversy. LOTS of people who don't edit wikipedia are aware of it. I.E. a certain community. This does not change the fact that feminists have been caught lying through their teeth in enforcing this article. To ask anyone to assume good faith at this point is almost an insult to his or her intelligence. See for yourself. Sloppy work. 96.225.126.239 ( talk) 16:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC) On top of it, maybe the new user wouldn't have been so accusatory if the first comment he received was from an admin, on this page, was an NPOV violation. Seriously? Go up and see for yourself. No help no direction just a warning about NPOV on a talk page. I'm going to assume that she didn't take the time to look at the claims seriously. That just shows that there's an agenda behind the editing here and not a search for truth. It's so obvious. To shut someone up because they don't know the rules is pointless. I'll stop my commentary after this. I mean really. Just because someone can post doesn't mean they should, and I'm not talking about the banned new user. 96.225.126.239 ( talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Actually no.
Really? That's the best response? It shows the state of mind of these people 96.225.126.239 ( talk) 16:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Made an account to prove I'm not a sockpuppet. See why I'm taking a break in the logs. I refuse to say that the people who did this were not feminists because they were motivated by a force that refuses to answer to logic, and the page was in concert with their ideology... SoSadddd ( talk) 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph of the Reception section, please replace:
[[Suzanne Lacy]] and Leslie Liebowitz's ''Three Weeks in May'' (1977)
with:
[[Suzanne Lacy]] and [[Leslie Labowitz-Starus]]'s ''[[Three Weeks in May]]'' (1977)
This corrects a misspelled name and links two articles. gobonobo + c 12:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Leslie Labowitz-Starus Links to the mentioned article properly. How can you claim that this is a good article when you don't know the proper name of it. It isn't a good article. I can say this with absolute confidence because of Wikipedia:Good articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.126.239 ( talk) 15:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually neither of these articles are. Where did SineBot go? 96.225.126.239 ( talk) 16:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
We can't write an article on the rape allegations because it's a BLP minefield. We don't and can't know what happened, and the accused is innocent as far as WP is concerned. For every allegation, someone will add a counter-allegation, and given the nature and number of them the article will spiral out of control.
The issues that gained publicity were the artwork and the dispute about the university's obligations, whether to the accused or accuser. That's one of the reasons the accused's lawyer decided to sue the university, not the accuser. So I suggest we give a very brief summary of the allegations, but otherwise focus on the impact of the artwork (but we should tone down the praise, and concentrate on the dispute about art versus bullying), the implications of the lawsuit (but not the details), and the issue of the university's conflicting obligations. Sarah (SV) (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think Sarah (SV)'s suggestion of PC2 protection might be good idea for a while because ever since the accused student filed the lawsuit, the page has been inundated with vandalism and BLP violations. The page seems at risk for becoming an attack page on Sulkowicz in violation of BLP. There are lots of new editors and IP's editing disruptively: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 21:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered...Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors at a disadvantage... The purpose of reviewing is to catch and filter out obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits on articles under pending changes protection...Reviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept. A reviewer only ensures that the changes introduced to the article are broadly acceptable for viewing by a casual reader.
I second the above motion. Especially considering sahrah did edit the talk mage over the weekend.
Sar Hrah you were wat chicken in this talk article Look at your only edit on it over this weekend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.252.116 ( talk) 07:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
What I meant to say was that Sarah made an edit over this weekend. If she felt this way why did she wait so long to do this? So long meaning until the page was protected. Also the circumstances of the case were totally different when the article first came out. I'd like to say a conspiracy theory sounds crazy but assuming good faith is getting harder and harder. People who feel so strongly about this now need to move off the page. If the article was notable when it first came on here the topic is notable now. If we're going to talk about lies on here I might as well say one that's a whopper 166.137.252.81 ( talk) 08:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia had a did you know for this woman. We need to make it right. Just because she feels that way does not mean she is right. We meed to judge her case on her own merits. She's trying to scare people into shutting up by calling them rape deniers. Rape is a horrible crime. She's taking advantage of that fact. Her own quotes are only digging her in now that another side of the story is known. Applying critical thinking skills to her case does not make me a rape denier. It would if she was tried In a court of law and not public opinion. She never could and it's no secret why. This article should be on here considering all the politicans that supported her. I never knew that before. I wonder if they're kicking themselves now? Hillary Clinton is running for president after all. 166.137.252.23 ( talk) 08:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Links to that with good sources for the politicans will be found in prior versions of this article. If it was In the obviously biased article it needs to be in the one to be. Another note: repressive tolerance is a good say of describing what happened to this article even if the person who made the comparisons was a jerk, if this is the reason why all proposed edits not favorable to her were protected in the name of that could not stand logic. Wikipedia is not Rolling Stone, which has become a punchline in some jokes for similar reasons
166.137.252.81 ( talk) 08:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the first line of the overview section is a little factually confused. Sulkowicz began to work with a mattress for a video made at the Yale Norfolk Artist Residency in the summer of 2014. Sulkowicz then continued to work with the mattress when she returned to Columbia in the fall. At this point she began Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) by caring the mattress with her around the Columbia campus. The project then became her senior thesis at Columbia, not at Yale. Summer academic residencies dont usually have a senior thesis. Bipandboppop ( talk) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to comment, a lot of the Wikipedia policy arguments for not naming this guy in the article went out the window the minute he filed a lawsuit. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change from "accused" to "suspected". The term accused is ambiguous. He was never charged (the district attorney's office declined to pursue the case) nor did he face a criminal trial (only a fruitless university inquiry).-- 82.113.106.150 ( talk) 13:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Former suspect. Would be appropriate. He isn't suspected any longer.-- Cyve ( talk) 17:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. Continue to discuss and if a consensus is reached then reactivate the request. --
GB
fan
19:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Full text: [15].-- Cyve ( talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
'The lawsuit even argues it was Sulkowicz herself who first broached the possibility of anal sex with [redacted], even though claims of forced anal sex are central to her claim of rape.
[1]
Should this be included in the lawsuit section? 206.248.138.62 ( talk) 06:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the lawsuit section has been deleted in its entirety. I think that at the very least the April 2015 lawsuit against Columbia and Sulkowicz’s Art Professor Kessler should be mentioned. Why is this relevant to the art performance itself? It is relevant because the federal complaint alleges at Paragraph 68 that this was not an art performance but a personal vendetta "under the guise of performance art." The complaint further alleges that the Mattress Project was not about art but about stalking (Paragraph 70) and that Columbia approved the project and has publicly endorsed it and effectively sponsored it (Paragraph 71, 98, 141). Ultimately, the plaintiff alleges the Mattress Project constituted gender-based harassment against him in violation of Title IX (Paragraph 77). Whether or not the allegations prove to be true or false, the fact is that this art performance project has given rise to a lawsuit. That should, at a minimum, qualify a lawsuit mention under the RECEPTION heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.243.242 ( talk) 00:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
”there were no witnesses to the alleged assault, and there’s no physical evidence." [16] -- 82.113.98.7 ( talk) 12:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the quotes of Jerry, who praised Sulkowicz, and his wife Roberta, who interviewed Sulkowicz. Both for the New York newspaper Times, which often quotes Sulkowicz's father Kerry, whose employees advise Sulkowicz.-- 82.113.98.242 ( talk) 18:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To bring this up to date, two edits would be helpful.
1. In the lead, to restore (roughly) what was there, please add this to the end of the second paragraph:
In April 2015 he filed a sexual-discrimination lawsuit against Columbia, its trustees, president Lee Bollinger and Sulkowicz's supervising art professor, Jon Kessler, alleging that, in allowing the art project to go ahead, they exposed him to gender-based harassment. [2]
2. To the Reception section, please add to the end of the first paragraph (after "He also noted that, as the work serves as Sulkowicz's senior thesis, it is being supervised by a Columbia faculty member"):
In April 2015 he filed a lawsuit against the university, its board of trustees, its president, Lee Bollinger, and Sulkowicz's senior-thesis supervisor, Jon Kessler, alleging that they exposed him to gender-based harassment and a hostile educational environment in allowing the art project to go ahead. He maintains that in so doing they damaged his college experience, emotional well-being, reputation and career prospects. [2]
Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Administrator note Not sure if there is agreement here yet. Please continue the discussion and reactivate is necessary. Regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Does anyone have a good source aside from this person mentioned, to still say that the article should be called an "art piece", and not "Emma Sulkowicz rape allegations" ? I honestly think it should be proposed as a move, along with a major overhaul of the article for purposes of clarity and NPOV. OhWhyNot ( talk) 02:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, edited for clarity. How Ironic. But the point still stands... OhWhyNot ( talk) 04:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
This being why this article has been here for so long in this state - maybe - but the reason why Emma went to the police and did this? Most likely. OhWhyNot ( talk) 06:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Absurd. OhWhyNot ( talk) 07:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
What about Tawana Brawley rape allegations? OhWhyNot ( talk) 07:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps useful quotes, but this discussion is already irredeemably poisoned. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 21:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"If we use proof in rape cases, we fall into the patterns of rape deniers." [17] "If we keep trying to 'prove that it exists' we will never get anywhere." [18] Emma Sulkowicz, Metcalf Auditorium, Brown University, April 16, 2015 ( [19] [20]) -- 88.70.11.79 ( talk) 06:29,
Emma Sulkowicz, Senior Wisdom ( [21]) -- 88.70.11.79 ( talk) 12:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why did you delete criticism? Why may only praise be mentioned? Why not criticism? It's not neutral. Read your own rule Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight! -- 88.70.11.79 ( talk) 11:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. Please discuss with other editors on this page — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Anon refers to this:
The accused student said in a December 2014 interview with The New York Times that the mattress performance is not an act of artistic expression, but instead one orchestrated to bully him and force him to leave Columbia. He said that on the National Day of Action, protesters followed him around, carrying mattresses to one of his classes and taking his picture. He also said that he was not permitted to use written communications between himself and the alleged victim as evidence, and expressed disbelief that anyone could believe he was guilty even after his accusers failed to meet what he deemed the low burden of proof in the university hearing process.
[1] He also stated that since Sulkowicz's protest serves as her senior thesis, it is being supervised and implicitly endorsed by a Columbia faculty member.
[1] His lawyer added that Senator Gillibrand failed to adequately investigate his accuser's account before appearing with her and that she "[took] a fictional event and [built] an entire platform around it".
[2]
Asked by German
Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin about her feelings on the treatment of her son at Columbia, his mother said, "This is a feeling of lawlessness." His father said that he sometimes fears his son will leave the school as a "cynic" and a "suspicious man".
[3]
The
New York Post's Naomi Schaefer Riley criticized Sulkowicz's work as "shaming without proof" and accused her and her supporters of "saving themselves from having to answer any questions and destroying men's lives with lies and innuendo."
[4] In his article If anything’s art, art’s nothing,
National Post columnist
Robert Fulford compared Sulkowicz's work to that of
Megumi Igarashi and concluded, "if everything is art, then art can be used for anything. And in the process meaning and value dissolve and art becomes hopelessly debased."
[5]
Glenn Reynolds, law professor at the
University of Tennessee, wrote on his political blog
Instapundit: "It would have been nice if Senator Kirsten Gillibrand hadn't joined the lynch mob, embracing Sulkowicz and calling [the accused student] a 'rapist' even after he was cleared by two different proceedings (one of which required only a preponderance of the evidence to convict)".
[6]
-- Cyve ( talk) 23:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
To correct
WP:UNDUE a bit we should add the quote (green text) to the reception section after the fourth paragraph. The opposition should be heard too. As of May 4 there was consensus about this text. Until now no one contradicted. --
Cyve (
talk)
22:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
As was the case months ago, it's rather silly that the article devotes major space to detailing various activist histrionics and posturing, as well as fluffy supportive commentary from non-notable art people — which of course studiously avoids the question of whether the accusation has any truth or merit — while carefully omitting actual notable published commentary that calls the accuser's credibility into question. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
CUMB seemed to make a lot of people uncomfortable when it focused on No Red Tape’s projections on Low Library and criticized both NRT and the media for “reducing” their movement to a “single case.” ...they did point out how “click-baity” a lot of the news coverage has been, and how the administration still doesn’t seem to be doing anything. [23] Ms. Matlow noted that No Red Tape itself had mocked artwork as an inadequate option for fulfilling the sexual respect requirement. “Unless it involves a mattress,” she added, a reference to Emma Sulkowicz, a Columbia senior who, as part of her visual arts thesis, has carried a mattress with her everywhere she has gone on campus to protest the university’s handling of her claim that a fellow student raped her in her dorm room. The line drew a few boos, and then some cheers. One art critic was not so amused! Ms. Sulkowicz, who figured in several other jokes about her status as a poster child for sexual assault on campus, did not attend Orgo Night. But she said in an interview that she was hurt and disappointed in the band. “I guess they don’t really know anything about how a survivor would feel, to get totally made fun of in front of the entire school,” she said. [24] Columbia, May 7. [25] -- 82.113.106.146 ( talk) 12:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The article isn't about how people mocked her. It is about her allegations and her "art piece". Talking about survivors of rape should have it's own article, and, to be frank, not piggyback on her... performance, to keep it civil.
Sketches0993 (
talk)
03:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems rather bizarre that a bullying campaign is being labeled "performance art". A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like for the "not responsible" to be replaced with "exonerated" (no quotations). Wikipedia has been promoting this girl's propaganda for much too long now. This girl's need for attention is a huge blow to real rape victims. Please, please, please stop insinuating that the guy actually did rape her. If that is the case (which I suspect it is not), wikipedia is only discouraging true rape victims from coming forward. Stop painting this girl in such a wonderfully pathetic light and allow users, such as myself, to edit her page so that the public knows the truth.
Sincerely, A true rape victim who lives in New York CIty D.morganbarry ( talk) 20:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the quote marks (if that is indeed the conclusion of the discussion above, because I got a little lost.) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that his parents released this statement:
"Our son's graduation should have been a joyous moment for our whole family. We are extremely proud of Paul for graduating, even more so because of the harassment campaign he was subjected to. For over two years, he had to fight false accusations and a public witch-hunt, even though Columbia and the NYPD exonerated him. At graduation, Columbia University again broke its own rules and afforded Emma Sulkowicz a special exception. It was the second devastating experience in just a few days: Last week, Columbia exhibited Emma Sulkowicz's highly disturbing and extremely graphic drawings of our son publicly on campus. We have come to realize that at Columbia, not all are equal before its policy. What is the point of internal investigations if their outcome is not accepted? Instead those with better connections and more influence promoted a false narrative. While they failed at their goal of bullying our son into leaving this university, they have turned his life into a nightmare. Responsible for this nightmare is not just the woman, who received an academic degree for the attempt to shame Paul away from campus, but even more at fault is the University that conferred this degree. A university that bows to a public witch-hunt no longer deserves to be called a place of enlightenment, of intellectual and academic freedom. By failing to intervene in this injustice, Columbia ceases to be a place where critical thinking, courage and democratic practice are taught, learned and lived. Two years ago we would have never believed that one of the world's most prestigious universities would not only allow such harassment but explicitly support it on its campus. This has been a deeply humiliating experience. We are very proud of our son for graduating from college, but our memory of it will always be tainted by Columbia's wrongdoing." [30] [31] [32] [33]-- 82.113.106.162 ( talk) 23:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggested edits to add details and change the tense in the first paragraph of the lead, now that the work has ended. The second paragraph is unchanged except for some copy editing.
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (2014–2015) was a work of endurance performance art by Emma Sulkowicz carried out during the final year of her visual arts degree at Columbia University. [1] Created in September 2014 for her senior thesis, the piece involved Sulkowicz carrying a 50lb, extra-long, dark-blue mattress wherever she went on campus, until a student she alleges sexually assaulted her was expelled from or otherwise left the university. [2] Both students graduated in May 2015, which brought the work to an end. Sulkowicz carried the mattress to her graduation ceremony. [3]
Art critic Jerry Saltz included Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) in his list of the best art shows of 2014, calling it "pure radical vulnerability." [4] The accused student, who was found "not responsible" by a university inquiry, called Sulkowicz's allegations "untrue and unfounded" and Mattress Performance an act of bullying. [5] [6] In April 2015 he filed a sexual-discrimination lawsuit against the university and its trustees, as well as its president, Lee Bollinger, and Sulkowicz's supervising art professor, Jon Kessler. The lawsuit alleges that, in allowing the art project to go ahead, they exposed the accused to gender-based harassment. [7]
Saltz
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).lawsuit
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)