Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:36, 13 May 2015

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Should we name the student accused of rape in the article Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)?

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should we name the student accused of rape in the article Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)? He has not been convicted, nor charged with any crime, and a university tribunal found him “not responsible”. He has given public interviews, which appear to be an effort to clear his name after the Columbia Spectator (university newspaper) controversially published his name online as Sulkowicz’s alleged rapist in connection with Sulkowicz’s high profile performance art project, Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight. This issue was actually discussed previously at BLPN: The thing that has changed, is that now, in addition to the public interviews, he has filed a Title IX sexual discrimination lawsuit against Columbia University. (Note: information about the lawsuit is not currently in the article because following recent disruptive editing, the article has been locked down and restored to prior version (before the lawsuit))--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Per WP:BLPNAME, because he is an otherwise low-profile individual of interest only because of a single event and per WP:CRIME because he is accused but not convicted of a crime and is otherwise unnoteworthy. Adding his name to the article will add nothing to anyone's understanding of the article subject. The filing of a lawsuit is not relevant because Misplaced Pages is not in the business of punishing people for attempting to seek legal remedies. Formerip (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

'Disruptive editing'? As in pointing out that even the article name is a violation of NPOV policy? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• In addition to the reliable English-language sources that name the student, German newspapers (the accused student is German) mention him by name as well (e.g., , ). His name is as public as the name of the alleged victim. --SonicY (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

His name being public is not a relevant consideration. Obviously, if it wasn't public it would be impossible for us to name him anyway. The policies I linked to are quite clearly-worded. It's about whether he is otherwise notable and/or whether his identity is important, not simply whether is name is out there. Formerip (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The policy you linked says that caution should be applied in cases when the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed. This is not the case here; his name has been widely disseminated and not concealed. --SonicY (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I linked to two policies. For BLPNAME, it may or may not be that his name has been intentionally concealed. Perhaps it was initially, which would certainly count. But what's your objection to applying CRIME? Formerip (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRIME says that a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Misplaced Pages article. But the student isn't the subject of a separate article and he isn't only known in connection with a criminal event. Now he's also known for inspiring a famous performance artwork and for suing an Ivy League college for gender discrimination (among other things). --SonicY (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I linked the wrong policy. It should be WP:BLPCRIME, as discussed lower down in the discussion now. Basically, he has not been convicted of any crime and his name is unimportant in terms of understanding the subject of the article. There's no reason to include it beyond "because we can", which is not a reason. Formerip (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that he is "known for inspiring a famous performance artwork". Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, if it improves the article - For the same reason I stated in the discussion a few months ago. His name has already been publicized and he has given interviews. I don't think that WP:BLPNAME applies in this case.- MrX 01:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

A compelling focus resulted from the filing of the lawsuit against the university. I think his name is as important as her name at this point. No longer is there a presumption that the artwork should be considered unanswerable to anyone. The lawsuit is saying that the university in its zest to let creativity be unfettered has failed the other student. The focus now is not as much on rape as it had been prior to the lawsuit. The strange and interesting situation now is that freedom of creativity is pitted against another person's claimed right to peacefully pursue education. The interesting thing now is that the university campus is a microcosm in which freedom of expression is pitted against another person's right to not be harassed by what is claimed to be a wayward work of art. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, so long as we point out that three separate investigations (by the university, the police, and the DA) all cleared the accused student, leading one to believe that Sulkowicz's report, seven months after the alleged incident, may have been less than truthful. That and the fact that two additional follow-on investigations also cleared him. That would probably take up as much space as the mattress-girl's propaganda show. Or you could just leave the guy alone. There is no indication that he is anything but a victim of this girl's unsubstantiated attacks. GregJackP Boomer! 01:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The question is how do we write the article—the accused, the accused, the accused? Bus stop (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes As other users have pointed out, stating his name in the article is not breaking any Misplaced Pages guidelines (I won't repeat them, just look at the discussion), and he is an important figure in the subject of the article. We can name him and state that he is the alleged abuser but he has been found innocent by whoever. The question at this point surely isn't that we shouldn't name him for libelous reasons, as - as it has been extensively discussed here and on the articles talk page - no rules are being broken in doing so, and including his name would improve the article as Misplaced Pages is an accumulation of facts and reports from reliable sources if nothing else. He himself has put his name out there, he's notable, there should be no problem. - RatRat- Talk    02:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@GregJackP: Sulkowicz's report... may have been less than truthful... mattress-girl's propaganda show... victim of this girl's unsubstantiated attacks. It's ironic that you suggest that his name should be excluded under WP:BLP but have no qualms about uttering thinly veiled accusations of criminal misconduct (false rape charge) against the alleged rape victim and, by extension, the other other two women and one man who also accused him of sexual assault. --SonicY (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, I have made no accusation that Sulkowicz has committed a criminal offense in New York or elsewhere. I have said that her allegations were "unsubstantiated" and that she may have been "less than truthful," neither of which meed the elements of the New York,s "False reporting an incident" statute, see N.Y. Penal Law § 240.50, nor the elements of § 210.45 (Making a punishable false written statement), nor the enhanced versions (§§ 210.35-210.40), nor the elements of any level of Perjury (§§ 210.05-210.15), and so on. If you're going to accuse me of something, make sure that you understand what the criminal law is, and what it is not. I chose my words very carefully so as not to accuse her of any criminal act. Additionally, the individual who you want to name has been cleared in each and every one of the investigations that he has gone through, and the mere accusations do not make him fair game for us dragging his name through the mud. GregJackP Boomer! 15:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You did choose your words carefully and your accusations are veiled albeit thinly. You didn't outright say that she and the other alleged victims fabricated the crime, you said that her report "may have been less than truthful", "propaganda" this and that. My point was that your inconsistent application of BLP is ironic. It's okay to use her name and impugn her character (less than truthful, "propaganda", attacked the poor guy) but it's not okay to use his name (let alone suggest that he's anything but an innocent victim). No, the accusations do not "make him fair game", but his many interviews, his lawsuit and his role in the performance piece allow Misplaced Pages to use his name which has been in the headlines for over a year. --SonicY (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So I guess we should also put the information that she has a history of allegations of sexual assault (pl. br. ¶45.f), none of which have ever been substantiated; that she made statements threatening that he was not safe on campus (pl. br. ¶¶85, 87), etc. Should we find all of the negative issues about her and include them in the article, so that it's balanced? GregJackP Boomer! 18:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You missed the part that says that the women have a history of wearing short skirts and the alleged male victim wears super tight pants (pl. br. img. bs. ah. ¶¶45, 1067). If I weren't such a kind fellow I would probably say something about your idea of "balance" or your bleeding heart for some people and contempt for other. I believe that we've established that 's name is widely disseminated and that his interviews and lawsuits had something to do with that. --SonicY (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude the name. The name is public and many of the sources we link to as references will it include it, so we're not suppressing the name. However, I don't see that including the name will improve the article. As a piece of performance art the name is irrelevant. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying the article is only about the artwork? That is what the title implies. But I think the scope of the article would include the lawsuit, would it not? Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article is supposed to be about the performance art but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have context and further developments. Reliable sources have reported on the legal developments in the context of the performance art. Why should Misplaced Pages censor the context, particularly when it is so important to the articles subject. - RatRat- Talk    02:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the subsequent developments are important. Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have yet to waver on my view that we should be using his name, there's no point in trying to shove the genie back into the lamp. This would be akin, in some ways, to attempting to pretend that everyone doesn't already know Trisha Ellen Meili's name in the Central Park jogger case and rewriting the article in horrifically mangled English and awful circumlocutions to avoid using Meili's name; Meili also had her name outed against her will, and like this man chose to start doing interviews under her own name in response. I'm not attempting to equate his situation with Meili's, only that his name is already out there and no amount of shoving our heads in the sand will change that. If you really want to see a situation where a person's name should be kept out you can check my contributions, you'll find this situation is quite far removed from that one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. WP:BLPNAME doesn't preclude us from coming to a consensus to mention by name here. His identity has been widely disseminated in the media and his actions are not those of a low-profile individual. He spoke to the New York Times for a story in December 2014 and gave an interview for The Daily Beast in February. He further raised his profile with the filing of v. Columbia University and his lawyer is giving quotes to the press like “He’s become the poster boy for something he didn’t do.” gobonobo 05:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Include name - Name is public enough and the individual has contributed to that publicity by interviews and lawsuits. Don't see an issue with WP:BLPNAME here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}}
• No. Until there is a conviction on the rape charges, the presumption is that he is a victim of bullying by the alleged victim and by the university. Our policy clearly forbids us from participating in such bullying. The fact that his name became public when he filed a lawsuit is irrelevant. Unlike her, he didn't seek publicity. I just redacted his name from the article talk page because we shouldn't name him there either. You can expect an edit war over my decision :( but I won't be participating in it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait wouldn't the university and the artist be presumed innocent until proven guilty as well since there's a lawsuit against them? We can't assume bullying either. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a flawed comparison. Beyond the civil/criminal distinction the allegations in the civil suit aren't disputed by either party, the question for the court is whether they constitute Title IX violations. If plaintiff and defendant agree on the "facts" of the case I see no reason to exclude those facts from the article. 169.57.0.213 (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If you wouldn't support removing Meili's name from Misplaced Pages, I'd be interested as to how you'd resolve that dissonance with this situation. Shoving our fingers in our ears and pretending we can't see what's right in front of our faces is a completely untenable way to write an article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Presumed innocent until proven guilty" relates to criminal cases and this man's lawsuit is a civil case. I see no need to mention this man's name in our article and strong reasons to refrain from mentioning it. He has not been convicted of a crime, though the woman says he committed one. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Three women and one man have accused him, to be precise. And the alleged victims also haven't been convicted of a crime (false accusation of rape), so by that logic, their names shouldn't be mentioned either. She/the accuser/the alleged victim, he/the accused/the alleged rapist – that's what we would be stuck with. Using and Sulkowicz's very public names would clearly improve the article. --SonicY (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

And every investigation has cleared him of the accusations. Every single time. GregJackP Boomer! 15:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You missed the point that I was trying to make. Btw, at least one alleged victim's case is still pending. And please please please let's not get into a discussion of who get's cleared sometimes and how many rape reports lead to convictions. --SonicY (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I understand completely. More than one person has accused him, therefore Misplaced Pages should publicly join the effort to permanently humiliate him, despite the fact that not a single investigation has substantiated any of the charges. As far as reports and convictions, I dare say that I have investigated far more rapes and know much more about the decisions inherent in a rape prosecution than most—but that's beside the point. Misplaced Pages is not the place for SJWs and we need to protect people's privacy. We omitted a lot less sensitive material in order to protect figures who are still alive, just because this is an alleged campus rape doesn't change the moral thing to do as to the male victim's privacy. GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "humiliate" him, please ease up on the emotion. We're trying to determine whether there's a policy-based reason to censor his widely disseminated name. Misplaced Pages is not the place for SJWs – interesting choice of bogeyman and lingo right there. Had you remained silent, some people would not have realized what this was about. I'm out. --SonicY (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This somewhat reminds me of the Belle Knox situation, where she initially did not want to have her name (Miriam Weeks) used. This isn't entirely the same scenario (his name has been confirmed as the suspect although he has been cleared of the charges), but there is the question of whether or not the person himself would want his name used in the Misplaced Pages article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Also somewhat related is that the person who outed Knox was named in several media outlets and he confirmed this himself, but it was ultimately decided that his name did not add anything to the article and was removed. Again, the scenario here is not identical but this does somewhat set some sort of precedent here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• I mean he can't have it both ways, @Tokyogirl79:, once he's publicly outed himself in the news and in a lawsuit, wikipedia should name him. if he wants to be named in public, he can't avoid being named on Misplaced Pages.--Shibbolethink 15:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Suggestion. I suggest that someone email the accused's lawyer and ask whether the accused has a preference about being named. If he doesn't want to be named, I think we should respect that for now. Whatever we decide for the article should apply to the talk page too. Sarah (SV) 06:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a great precedent... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's that bad of an idea, however any email should state that a statement would not guarantee the name's removal. It would surely impact the debate, but it wouldn't be a guarantee. An alternate thing to take into consideration is that the lawyer may state that the guy has no problem with his name being in the article as long as we state that he was cleared of charges (which it is/would be), which would make this entire debate somewhat moot. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, no guarantee, just to give us extra information that we can factor in. For example, he might be quite willing to be named, which means we're wasting our time dicussing it. But if he'd prefer not, at least we have a pointer BLP-wise. Sarah (SV) 08:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've sent an e-mail to the lawyer via his website and I've asked him, but I made sure to stress that there was no guarantee that a formal statement for its omission would guarantee anything. I did make sure to state that the article did have that the guy was cleared of the accusations. I directed him to Misplaced Pages's official e-mail, so if he decides to respond (no guarantee there) then we'll at least have that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Tokyogirl79, thanks for doing that. Will be interesting to see if they respond. Sarah (SV) 20:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Tokyogirl79, did he respond? What did he say?--82.113.98.93 (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• No- I've yet to receive a response. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Name Calling him "the accused" continually invokes thoughts of rape accusations, and associates those with his character (his part in the story, not his moral character). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:31, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

• Only if his defense is given full treatment - Sulcowicz allegation of rape is from a primary source only (her allegation), which is accepted in the article. For starters, it should be made clear from the outset. Instead of saying "allegation" alone, it should be "unfounded allegation" per the findings of both the university, as well as the police who declined to pursue a criminal case after an investigation. Then his defense should be given full hearing - just saying he denied it does not balance a rape accusation.Mattnad (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but Only if his defense is given full treatment and we actually adhere to NPOV. I think there definitely were some shenanigans going on in that article, though subtle. Such as the inclusion of "Cathy Young, who has a history of reporting critically on sexual assault." That clause only made sense if we also clarified that every other journalist involved also had a history of reporting this way or that way on the topic. That kind of clause is more suited to Gawker or Jezebel than Misplaced Pages. That was just one example of a few subtle NPOV things, but nothing that I think should preclude including the accused's name. His name is a now a matter of public record, and therefore, it's fair game. --Shibbolethink 15:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That was actually supported by The Washington Post because they specifically commented on Cathy Young's history of reporting critically on campus anti-rape activism, in the context of discussing Sulkowicz's case. Moving The Washington Post reference away from the statement, and tagging it as citation needed seemed like "shenanigans", but perhaps accidental and that's probably a topic for the article talk page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes; widely disseminated name, including due to his own actions. --GRuban (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yes He's named himself, he's even suing the school. It's out there, we're censoring it for a hodgepodge of reasons, none of which are good, and none of which are grounded in policy. GraniteSand (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, done carefully. His name is universally reported by the sources and is a matter of public record, his identity is a relevant and significant part of the story, and he himself is not keeping his identity private. Removing it creates a moderate disservice to readers, does not serve BLP or any other purpose, and frankly, is rather weird and makes the encyclopedia appear as such. We would not report his name merely as a person named but uncharged and unconvicted of a crime, because that does fit WP:BLPCRIME. Rather, he is an active central participant in a notable event. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Whilst his name is in the public domain, it is there because his accuser (or one of her sympathisers) has pushed it into the public domain by naming him. Also the lawsuit exists because he believes he is being publicly bullied, he claims to be the WP:victim of harassment. Do we normally name victims when they take legal action? Martin451 19:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably we would if they did a huge interview with The Daily Beast and the New York Times that was reprinted by dozens of other news outlets.--Shibbolethink 20:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

When he did the Daily Beast and NYT interviews, his name has already been released. I believe she gave his name to an article in the university newspaper, which was also published online. He may have felt an interview about his side was the only way to reduce the attention, and since his name was public anyway, felt no option to use it. Another option here would be to remove all mention of his first name, and just go by surname. I have great reluctance in using his name, but as pointed out above, what else would we call him "The accused" would violate BLP when he has been cleared. Martin451 21:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes with caveats. First we have to be clear that this was an allegation, then that the allegation was investigation, and subsequently the findings of the investigation. If he hadn't came back with a lawsuit saying this performance art was harassment, I would say no. But the lawsuit itself is relevant to the article, and our coverage of the lawsuit would be rather ridiculous if we can't use his name. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yes as long as there isn't WP:UNDUE. This article is about the performance piece, not the incident itself or even the creator of the art or the accused. His name is on the public record, in New York newspapers. But we aren't trying the case on Misplaced Pages and have to present both sides of a dispute. We talk about the art and its creation and reaction to it. That was the original intent of changing the name of the article from the name of the article from Emma Sulkowicz to Mattress Performance. It reflected that the article was about the art, not the incident. Liz 21:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Question for everyone insisting on keeping his name out: It's not a perfect analogy, but is there any policy-based reason to keep Steven Pagones' name out of the Tawana Brawley rape allegations article? Imagine for a second what the article would look like; "Sharpton and Maddox then accused a white man living in Duchess County... the accused denied the allegations and then filed a defamation lawsuit... Sharpton then had to pay X dollars to the accused..." If that seems like a completely unreasonable way to write an article, explain how this situation is different. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up other articles? And WP:BLPCRIME is far more important than the subjective opinion of how an article looks. ― Padenton|✉   15:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)But don't you understand?!? THIS is different. It is a SJW issue, and the accused (who has been repeatedly cleared of any wrong-doing) MUST pay! </sarcasm> GregJackP Boomer! 15:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No, BLPCRIME doesn't say anywhere that we shove our heads in the sand and scream "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" to the obvious; that's anathema to writing an informative encyclopedia article, as by definition we are supposed to include such things as all of the 5 Ws. I bring up another example to show a similar situation where people haven't lost their minds and tried to hide a name that's already out there in the national news. The question still stands; what policy-based reasoning allows us to leave in Pagones' name and not his (and do you think the Tawana Brawley case wasn't SJW? You obviously don't know what I think about the case, I suspect you'd be quite surprised). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@GregJackP: Please stop with the disinformation. He has not been "repeatedly cleared of any wrong-doing." He had earlier been found "responsible" for another sexual assault, but had appealed after the woman graduated and didn't want to argue her case out of fear to alienate her new employer. The fourth alleged victim's case is still pending. Not everyone who supports using 's name is a "SJW", just as not everyone who opposes using his name is a GamerGate supporter or men's rights activist. --SonicY (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: You seem to be arguing that he might be guilty when you're supposed to be assuming that he's not. I know you think he is, but try to imagine you think otherwise. Do you still want his name in the article? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is why the SJW comment is appropriate. Especially since, lack of assertions to the contrary, the male victim has been cleared of all of the accusations. GregJackP Boomer! 20:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• NO. This is a very clear example of where WP:BLPCRIME should be applied. The person is not notable in any way except for this incident, and due to the nature of the accusation (a campaign against him arguing that universities the justice system are inadequate in catching rapists), mentioning his name inherently casts suspicion on him, even if a full explanation of his side of the story is made. The article is perfectly fine the way it is, and making it arguably slightly prettier is not nearly as important as protecting an individual's right to be presumed innocent. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And exactly how is continually calling him "the accused" doing any favors for the presumption of innocence? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, I think the difference between this article and the article you mentioned above, is the Mattress Performance article doesn't contain the text "falsely accused" (and it can't if we respect our policies). Even if the accused student wins his lawsuit, that doesn't speak directly to his innocence or guilt, considering he's not even suing Sulkowicz, he's suing the university. His lawsuit is actually arguing that allowing Sulkowicz to receive course credit for a senior art thesis which is based on an allegation of rape against him, is sexual discrimination prohibited under Title IX. It seems the ethical question here is should we link him by name to a rape allegation, for which he has not been charged, and likely never will be, but that in all likelihood will never be deemed officially a false allegation of rape?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no point to keeping "John Doe's" name out of the article. We are discussing an article that has a person bringing a lawsuit. That person has a name. The lawsuit challenges a university's acquiescence to another student's harassment. This is an important legal case. John Doe could just as well not brought a lawsuit. The fact that he took legal action to in essence curtail unfettered artistic activity sets him apart from a minor character whose name should not be given wider exposure in our article. There is nothing tawdry or sensationalistic about referring to him by his proper name. I think he is taking an idealistic position on a troublesome question. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

So in your view, if a non-notable person is defamed and harassed, it is inappropriate to publish the name and thus contribute to the defamation and harassment. But if that person files a lawsuit about being defamed and harassed, then it is appropriate? Kind of a catch-22, don't you think? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The moment he filed a lawsuit and outed himself in public via the Daily Beast, he became notable.--18:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

We need to appreciate the oddness of the work of art. Works of art can have a variety of subject matter. But I don't know of any other work of art that targets another person. According to our article Emma Sulkowicz vows to perform the work of art "until a student she alleges sexually assaulted her is expelled from or leaves the university." According to our article "She has said she plans to continue until the accused student is expelled from or otherwise leaves Columbia, and that she will take the mattress to her graduation ceremony if necessary." The name of the alleged rapist was of lesser importance prior to the lawsuit and the name of the artist was of greater importance, but after the lawsuit the name of the artist is of lesser importance to our article—she is not even named in the lawsuit—and the name of the alleged rapist is of greater importance. He is challenging the university. That is arguably an important role in the outline of our article. His lawsuit if successful would inevitably curtail the scope of art in the setting of that university's campus. His stature has increased in our article consequently his name warrants mention. Bus stop (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This is crystal-balling. If this develops into a landmark legal case and/or a case that makes national front-page news, then at that point in time it would undoubtedly be right to take a step back and consider what that means for the article. At the moment, we have a case being filed, which may or may not ever end up in a courtroom. It certainly should feature in the article and possibly even be mentioned in the lead, but it doesn't change the basic dynamic of the article, which is about a work of performance art. The name is still not important. Formerip (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

So by that logic we should pretend Al Sharpton accused "a guy from Duchess County" and Dominique Strauss-Kahn had "an allegation from a hotel maid". I see no cogent argument that would allow the quite rightful inclusion of those names and not the equally rightful inclusion of this one, especially in Nafissatou Diallo's case. Identities should really only be hidden in very extreme cases (check my contributions for one), and in this case the guy has quite readily identified himself. BLPCRIME and such exist to protect people who aren't already out there, our job isn't to sing "TRALALALALALALALALALALALA" and be a group of 1 on this issue. Every reliable source uses his name, and we at Misplaced Pages are supposed to be following sources, not deliberately going against them by writing tortured circumlocutions so we can pretend we're doing anyone (not the least of whom are our readers who are looking for information and readable prose) a service. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

FormerIP—do you think you could tell me in your own words what you think we would be accomplishing by leaving out the name of "John Doe"? We know his name is not "John Doe". He has an actual name. He is not always referred to as "the accused". Why would we want to substitute "John Doe" or "the accused" for his actual name? What do you think we accomplish by sidestepping use of the actual name? Are there any alternative locutions to the phraseology "the accused"? Bus stop (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You're thinking about it backwards. There are obviously good reasons for the policy and it tells us to err on the side of caution in this type of circumstance. So, the default is that we don't include the name, unless we can think of a good reason why we need to. Whether I can think of any special reasons to exclude it, beyond our general duty to living people, is the wrong question. In terms of a positive reason to include it, I see none, and your idea that he has somehow made legal history by filing some court papers so that changes everything is completely wrong.

Alternatives to "the accused"? I'd go for "he" for most of the article, and we don't need "the accused" at all, because he is not facing a criminal trial. Formerip (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen some of the sources discussing the topic on which we are writing an article: , , , , , . Our article at present is not addressing most aspects of "John Doe's" lawsuit. And of course he is referred to by name in all of these sources. By the way, once again we see what an odd work of art this is: "John Doe claims that Sulkowicz breached a confidentiality agreement regarding the disciplinary hearing multiple times and that she defamed him with a targeted campaign to push him off campus. Sulkowicz herself said as much to the media: 'Get my rapist off campus,' she told a school publication, about the purpose of her art piece." Can you tell me of any other work of art that has as its aim the causing of another person to vacate premises? Art generally addresses ideas. They may be aesthetic, political, or other. But how often do we see art target another individual? She is not being sued. John Doe happens to be an important person in this story. Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, the current article goes beyond not addressing "most aspects" of the lawsuit. It doesn't mention any aspects of the lawsuit. Doesn't even mention it at all. This is because after User:AndyTheGrump blanked the whole thing and things got crazy, the article was frozen at its March 2 version, prior to the lawsuit. Before that the article addressed the lawsuit significantly. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, you don't seem neutral. Your page says you're an art lover.--82.113.99.53 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Happily, Misplaced Pages is not an art criticism site.

I think everyone participating here is aware that the name has been published in the media. This is not the point, though. AFAICT, no-one has come up with even the vaguest reason why including it would improve the article (beyond giving the reader a name they don't really need to know).

If you think there are aspects of the lawsuit that need to be mentioned in the article, you can make an edit request on the article talkpage. Formerip (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Including his name in the article serves to humanize him, present both sides of the case as neutrally as possible, based on facts, and it allows us to expand on his background in the case and the piece in a way that allows readers to draw their own conclusions about the circumstances. Leaving it out makes him a faceless and nameless "accused" that is /very/ easy to straw man in one's mind. How's that?--Shibbolethink 18:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Art lover"? I don't know about that, but you shouldn't post in the middle of someone else's post, as you do here. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of the name facilitates writing about the subject. Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

But she doesn't allege theft of her lollipop, she accuses him of raping her arse. Would you want to read your name in an wikipedia article related to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.172 (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I tend to prefer propriety therefore I will not be engaging in base banter such as this. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• No. In local Berlin newspapers he is named "Adam K.". The Berlin neighborhood could otherwise easily identify him and his parents - it's not a very common surname and his mother is a public character of the Berlin feminist movement.--82.113.99.184 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Related issue: should we name the student accused of rape on the talk page Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)?

See , , and User talk:Guy Macon#Mattress --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Cullen does make a good point that it's not a criminal case but a civil case. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

To be specific, she filed a police report, the police interviewed him, and shortly afterwards the district attorney's office decided not to pursue the case. That's a criminal case -- a criminal case that went nowhere.

She also filed a a complaint with the university and the university inquiry found the student not responsible, but that was neither a civil or a criminal case.

His harassment/defamation lawsuit against Columbia, its president, and the professor who approved the project is a civil case, and our policy against revealing the names of the accused unless there is a conviction applies to criminal cases, not civil. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Redacting 's name from the talk page was unnecessary. His name appears in multiple reliable sources and he has spoken publicly about the situation.- MrX 12:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This guy gets it--Shibbolethink 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." -- Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons
Including the name of the accused does nothing to improve the article, and violates Misplaced Pages's BLP policy. This includes naming him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

How does it not improve the article? While reading the article before we named him, I was continually clicking links to see who he was and what had been published about him. He's done numerous self-pov articles in different newspapers, he's outed himself at least twice, and he's filed a lawsuit against columbia in the public domain, all those court records are public. He clearly has no problem with outing himself now, why would we not reflect that? BLP is only for cases when there's no consensus in the MSM. There is 100%, without a doubt, consensus amongst media sources that he has a name, and it is well documented.--Shibbolethink 16:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

How does including 's name violate his privacy when it has obviously been widely publicized in the media? And how does that same interpretation of WP:BLP allow us to include 's name who made (possibly false) rape allegations in the first place? What about her privacy and our conservative, non-tabloid treatment of this living person?- MrX 17:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"The media did it first" is not a valid reason to violate Misplaced Pages's BLP policy. And the reason we name her and not him is because she is not the accused in a criminal case but he is. Misplaced Pages's BLP policy is clear: we do not name non-public figures who are accused of a crime unless there is a conviction. We can (but are not required to) name either party of a civil lawsuit that is still being litigated. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The violation is imaginary and WP:BLPCRIME does not include the text that you quoted in your comment. It says "... editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime...". No one here is proposing that we suggest in an article that committed a crime. By the way, the young man is not "the accused in a criminal case" either.- MrX 21:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Re-read what you just wrote. The article, if it were to include his name would indeed not (directly) suggest that he had committed a crime, but it would outright state that he is accused of committing a crime. Formerip (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What part of

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." -- Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you freaking out? You have made no assertion, plausible or otherwise, that using 's name would potentially harm him. In fact, by omitting his name, there is an implication of guilt, which I would think would be far more harmful. Superficial appeals to policy without reasoning are not helpful.- MrX 19:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Here is yet another editor who insists on naming the accused: --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• No. WP:BLPCRIME is clear in this, and there's no reason to post it. "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." That's for any crime. For 'rape', for which accusations can cause far more damage than other crimes, we don't mention it. It does not matter if it's mentioned externally (and I would even hesitate to link to those sources), there's no reason to mention it on Misplaced Pages. BLPCRIME does not go deep into the issue of if the name is mentioned externally, but take the WP:OUTING policy as a precedent, which is clear that we do not mention an editor's connection to their real world persona on Misplaced Pages, even if they are publicly connected to their username outside of Misplaced Pages. ― Padenton|✉   18:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, and let's stop being strange about BLP. For the reasons his name is (arguably) includable in article space, it can be mentioned in talk space. There's no point censoring discussion to play games over a weird policy interpretation. It causes him no harm to discuss him in the context of the article. If it turns out that his name is excluded entirely from article space, which I disagree with, because it is not a complicated scenario where there are multiple people who one might be referring to there would be no particular need to mention his name on the associated talk page, so no particular harm from simply referring to him as the target of the performance. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yes My reading of the BLP policy is that we should avoid "outing" people, but was outed a long time ago and has since been a willing participant in two profiles with major newspapers. He's named in every single story I can find on the topic at this point, and there appears to be no effort -- on his part or on the part of any media outlet -- to keep his name a secret. This seems akin to refusing to name someone like Nblund (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not what WP:OUTING says. It says "unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages." and "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse". "Someone else outed him off-wiki" does not allow us to out him. "He outed himself off-wiki" does not allow us to out him.

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." -- Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

Note that there is no exception for subjects who have received a lot of media coverage. Just as with our WP:OUTING policy, someone else doing it first does not mean that we are allowed to do it. They are not an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you were using WP:OUTING as an analogy, not as a literally applicable standard -- he has directly outed himself to the press -- he hasn't outed himself directly on Misplaced Pages, but he has personally engaged in interviews with nationally circulated newspapers using his own name. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it sounds like you're suggesting that BLP standards would essentially prohibit Misplaced Pages from naming anyone who didn't personally and explicitly post their personal information directly to Misplaced Pages. That's not really a tenable argument IMHO Nblund (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:OUTING is about editors -- it has nothing to do with what we write in our articles. The alleged rapist is not hiding behind a pseudonym (like us). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thus my choice of the words "Just as with our WP:OUTING policy, someone else doing it first does not mean that we are allowed to do it. They are not an encyclopedia." If I had meant to claim that our outing policy applies to non-editors (which it doesn't) I would have written "According to our WP:OUTING policy..." The applicable policy is the third paragraph of WP:BLP and there is no exception listed for individuals who have outed themselves off-wiki. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The third paragraph of BLP doesn't say anything about people "outing" themselves off-wiki. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This^. It seems like the more directly relevant BLP policy is the portion on the privacy of names. Its fairly explicit in stating that the primary consideration is how widely disseminated their name is in the press. Nblund (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. As long as we adhere to WP:BLPTALK we're well within bounds to use 's name on the talk page as it is "related to making content choices". He isn't a low-profile individual and it will be less confusing if we can discuss content that pertains to him without having to censor ourselves. gobonobo 13:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Related issue: Should we stop lying through our teeth and pretending that an article concerning allegations of rape is about 'performance art'?

WP:COATRACK may only be an essay, but WP:NPOV is policy, last time I looked, and picking sides in a dispute and accepting as fact the statements from one side - and incorporating them into the article title doesn't really seem that neutral to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If anyone were doing so I'd absolutely agree, I don't see that here. I have quite deliberately not made my opinion known because it doesn't matter what I happen to think is the truth of the matter between the two of them, although I do tend to agree with Bus stop about Columbia's response. The title is a serious issue, but one I really don't know how to resolve. Someone with a cooler head and outside view would be appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a rough road. I would think the best course of action would be to rename the article to describe the entire situation and not just her protest, but I don't think the suggested naming of "Emma Sulkowicz False Rape Allegations" is pertinent because it'll be entirely impossible for any of us to know what really happened. I think perhaps a better naming would be something like Emma Sulkowicz and Rape Allegations or something like that. It needs to include both respondents, and it needs to not include the word "false".--Shibbolethink 15:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I wonder why Andy is getting so emotional about this issue. If you've got a suggestion for an alternative title, why not simply propose it and we can see whether it gains consensus? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Andy, the performance art is the key issue. That's why the case gained traction, it's why politicians got involved, and it's why the accused is suing the university and not his accuser, because he maintains that the former had a duty to protect him from it, not encourage it by allowing it as coursework. The issue with the article isn't the title, it's the way the article was being written, and becoming less and less about the art (from one perspective) or bullying-as-coursework (from the other perspective) and more about the detailed allegations. Sarah (SV) 07:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Andy, I know that I am trying very hard to make this a neutral and encyclopedic article, and so are a bunch of other editors (along with the usual verbal snipers and verbal bomb-throwers) and it sort of annoys me to be accused of "lying through my teeth and pretending". More light and less heat, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see how the article title is NPOV, but perhaps you have an alternative in mind. I agree that most of the content about the accusations should have been removed. It could have been summarized in a short paragraph to avoid the coatrack problem. Andy, with respect, if you're too emotionally involved in this subject, you may want to consider stepping back.- MrX 12:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Whatever sources I've seen weighing in on the question seem to support that Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is a work of art. Works of art are often transgressive thus stepping over a line of acceptability might not rule out that it is a work of art. Unless some sources can be presented which argue that this is not genuinely a work of art, I think we have to accept that an important element of our article is a bona fide work of art. Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert on what is and isn't art, but I know it when I see it, and this isn't it. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

National Post columnist Robert Fulford said, it isn't art (Robert Fulford: If anything’s art, art’s nothing) --82.113.98.114 (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've recently read up on this, based on sources in a previous version of the article. The creator of the performance is quite clear that she intended it as protest against the university's finding that he was not responsible for sexual assault, and would stop the performance once she graduated or more telling, when he's permanently separated from the college. That suggests it's not simply art, but an attempt to raise awareness of her position on the topic, and to put pressure on him and the university. If she had been designing and publishing posters (arguably art too), it would be no different. It can be both art, and an ongoing political statement. As the latter, it's really about her alleged attack. I'll add that activists on 130 other campuses carried mattresses in solidarity with her. To suggest that this is just about art is not really being honest.Mattnad (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• While I can understand the opinion that this is not art, the reliable sources call it art and Sulkowicz is receiving credit for this as art for her senior thesis as a visual arts major at Columbia University. In terms of neutral point of view, the accused student is not suing Sulkowicz, he is suing the university, specifically Sulkowicz's supervising art professor. Describing this as art seems unavoidable if we follow the reliable sources.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but if we followed the mainstream reliable sources, "redacted" would have a name. This article seems long beyond that simple approach. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

I think we can include both his name, and the entire article as an art piece, if users don't hide behind it as a way to block changes to the article. All elements of the lawsuit, the accused's history at columbia, etc. etc. are all inherently related to the art piece, and no one should be able to hide behind the art piece designation to call certain inclusions off topic.--Shibbolethink 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure, while I agree that the article had some NPOV issues, I don't think changing the name of the article is going to fix anything. The main notability of the event is garnered via her art piece, like it or not. It's what we build the article off of.--Shibbolethink 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Of course not. Rape allegations happen all the time; the performance art is what made this incident notable. --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That is of course the crux of the matter: if this was presented as an article about allegations of rape, it would never be accepted as an article. By coatracking the rape allegations into an article supposedly about 'art' (but in practice almost entirely about the allegations), basic Misplaced Pages policy can be ignored. The 'art' has no real significance as art beyond the allegations (we don't write articles about things other undergraduate students do as 'performance art') and even presenting it as art, rather than as the harassment that one party in the dispute sees it as is a violation of WP:NPOV. A neutral article on the whole series of events - which didn't permit one party on the dispute to dictate the terms in which it was described - would fail to demonstrate notability. Evidently though contributors would rather violate basic Misplaced Pages policies than admit that this article is inherently biased. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I somehow don't see how any article version would "fail to demonstrate notability" with numerous articles by the New York Times, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone, and Newsweek. It is my contention that the thing that differentiates this event from the hundreds of other rape allegations that don't get that coverage is the performance art aspect. But either way, it's clearly notable. (And we do document some of those hundreds of rape allegations even so.) --GRuban (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Notability"?? That's silly. The basic truth here is that this student's art project has been phenomenally successful in gaining attention -- and I think that means the article is built on solid notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think early on that was definitely the case, but it became a lot more than that, and it's gone squarely into the debate about equal treatment by the university (the Title IX complaint), as well as the vigilante justice by some on campus. This controversy has evolved from her protest, to a much bigger and broad item that really start with not only her accusation, but the other accusations that followed. To some degree, this has the halmarks of all that is wrong with universities getting involved with rape accusations - both for the accuser and the accused.Mattnad (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (local interests pretty much of interest to university students from Columbia University only - Govindaharihari (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You think? Why then did national press like the NYTimes, Time, Newsweek, Washington Post, and many others cover the recent Title IX lawsuit? Their editors don't agree that it's local to Columbia U. I can't reconcile your view, and what I read via a simple google search.Mattnad (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes,User:Mattnad you get a few reports, it's easy press. However, using my crystal ball, there is no long term notability of this student rape claim or the ongoing complaining disguised as artwork either, so , call it what you want, it's important to you and a few of the other associated, interested users here but of no interest or note to the world, on the wider issue, it's irrelevant, sorry Govindaharihari (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, User:Govindaharihari, if you're saying this is a niche topic, I agree. But Misplaced Pages has a lot of those - I'd say the majority of the articles are niche. But that's what makes Misplaced Pages great.Mattnad (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ignoring the opinionated nature of the way the question is posed in the heading, yes, absolutely, referring to it simply as "performance art" misses the point and the sources widely say. It is WP:SYNTH to argue that just because she calls it art and gets university credit as art, that it is art. The weight of reliable sources don't refer to it in their authoritative tone as protest or performance art, they use their own terms, and then describe how it has been called art. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• The performance art made this notable, but the performance art would be nothing without the rape allegations behind it. The rape allegations are central to the case, and are what has propelled this art onto the international stage. The article either needs to be about the whole case, the allegations, the law suit, and the art. Or it just needs to be about the art, with no commentary about (redacted). The latter would not be encyclopaedic, with the former we would need to present both sides equally, and so the article would need to be moved. Martin451 20:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Art can be political whilst still being art. ϢereSpielChequers 20:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Related issue: Should we rename the article "Emma Sulkowicz and Rape Allegations"

Several users have expressed distaste with the current name: Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) because they believe it shows the article is only depicting Sulkowicz's point of view. I think it's probably true, the article had grown far beyond the scope of just the art piece before it was locked. The numerous articles sourced throughout the piece talk more about the situation than the piece itself. Perhaps the solve to this is to rename it something that depicts both parties, and the nature of the situation, but doesn't use words like false. Thoughts?--Shibbolethink 15:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No. He is not alleging rape, so that would be inaccurate. We could perhaps name it Emma Sulkowicz and Title IX complaints against Columbia University, considering they have both filed Title IX complaints at this point, but considering the art project is what prompted all the publicity and the school's support of it is at the center of the lawsuit, I think it might be better to leave the current title--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What prompted the publicity is the protest, but what prompted the protest is the case at columbia. We're only giving our readers part of the story if we name it after the art piece.--Shibbolethink 15:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The accused should not be named -- in the article or on any Misplaced Pages talk page -- while there is an ongoing discussion about whether naming the accused violates Misplaced Pages's BLP policy. Get a clear consensus to name him first, then decide how best to name him. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Guy, the comment you appear to be responding to called him "John Doe". It never contained his real name. Are you suggesting even an anonymous placeholder name such as John Doe is inappropriate for the talk page use while discussing this case?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Using the place holder is entirely appropriate while we decide whether to use the name. The assumption here is that writing "We could perhaps name it Emma Sulkowicz and Title IX complaints against Columbia University" implies using his name in the title while writing "We could perhaps name it Emma Sulkowicz and John Doe's Title IX complaints against Columbia University" would imply using the placeholder in the title. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

His name should be used in our article. Neither his name nor her name should occur in the title of our article. The artwork is of considerable importance to this article. That artwork is a performance piece, it involves a mattress, and it takes place at Columbia University, therefore my suggested title is Mattress performance piece (Columbia University). Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance case (see Duke lacrosse case) or 2014 Columbia University rape allegations (see 2011 Libyan rape allegations)? --82.113.99.109 (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Oooh, yeah, that's a good alternative. I like that a lot.--Shibbolethink 15:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer the first one, Mattress Performance case. It would be appropriate for all facets of the article. Her allegations against him ("art"), his allegations against Columbia ("lawsuit") and the whole discussion ("media reaction, activists, title IX"). --Cyve (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly, it should probably be partially italicized. Like Mattress Performance case--Shibbolethink 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The title 2014 Columbia University rape allegations' accurately describes what the article is about - though evidently actually having a title that does that isn't acceptable to some contributors because it demonstrates just how weak the claim for notability is - to quote GRuban above, "Rape allegations happen all the time". Indeed, not only allegations, but charges, trials, and convictions. And rape convictions rarely meet Misplaced Pages notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

How about a title of Mattress performance art 2014 at Columbia University and subsequent lawsuit? Kind of catchy, isn't it? Bus stop (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I like it. I like it a lot. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• No. The notable subject here is not the rape allegations or the lawsuit, but the performance art piece. Therefore, the title of the article should be the title of the art piece. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The background to the art piece is important, and is what has made the performance art notable in the media. The background needs to be included, and if included so does (redacted's) lawsuit. This is much bigger than a woman just carrying a mattress around for no reason. Martin451 20:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Listen, Granger, I want to assume good faith. But WHY do you want to make the article about the piece when so much of WP:RSes don't cover /just/ the piece but the allegations behind it? If this goes the way of including only the art piece itself, and none of the allegations and the background, then I will make a new article about the allegations themselves, and it will definitely be notable. It has SERIOUS coverage in WP:RSes. So much. It's absurd how much.--Shibbolethink 20:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps what I said wasn't clear: I absolutely think that the article should give background information, including the allegations, and discuss the lawsuit as well, just as you've argued below. The central focus of the article, though, should be the artwork, which is the notable topic in all of this (I do not think the allegations are notable by themselves). The title, likewise, should refer to the artwork. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I might be able to support Mattress Peformance case, but as Granger says the notable subject is the performance art and people's reactions to it. The lawsuit is one reaction. It's not really clear what function the word case performs. Sarah (SV) 18:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If we don't include the elements of the sexual assault allegations that underly the art piece, we're doing three horribly ridiculous things: 1)A disservice to readers who want to know about why the art piece even exists. 2)A ridiculous song and dance of NPOV that excludes the entirety of the accused's side of the story, and 3)We're writing a completely unnotable and unencyclopedic article. How many WP:RSes cover the art piece, but not the allegations? I would bet very very few.--Shibbolethink 20:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Why does the article consist almost entirely of material not about the 'performance art' then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The current version focuses much more tightly on the artwork. The problem was that people kept expanding the rape aspect, and so counterclaims were added, then counter-counter claims. We should keep the article focused on the art and the response, including the view (via the lawsuit) that it's bullying-as-coursework, and the position of the university. Sarah (SV) 19:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

An article name that includes people's names when describing a controversy may be a BLP violation and is at any rate unencyclopedic. One that calls it art is including POV in the name. Describing it as a rape allegation is unduly narrow. Unfortunately, this may be a case where we end up with a slightly clunky name, like 2014 Columbia University Incident, where xxxx is the most neutral way we can find to inclusively sum up the broader phenomenon, and incident could be replaced by controversy or some other word. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The rape was alleged to have happened in 2012, and the report filed in 2013. Including the year 2014 would not be good in my opinion. Martin451 20:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Move to a more neutral title. Either XXX rape allegations, or Mattress performance case, or something else where the whole subject can be handled neutrally. Martin451 20:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• No per Mr Granger. We don't have an article for every rape that takes place, or every act of performance Art, but it is the art that makes this notable. ϢereSpielChequers 20:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

But we do have articles about rape allegations that are notable. If it is the art piece that makes this notable, then why are there so many WP:RSes publishing articles about the dispute that only include 1 or 2 sentences about the art piece?--Shibbolethink 20:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of some articles where either the victim or the alleged perpetrator are otherwise notable; That isn't the case here. Otherwise yes there are plenty of rape cases that get covered in reliable sources. But we are an encyclopaedia with a certain threshold for notability, we don't cover every murder or rape, and we wouldn't have an article on this one if it wasn't for the performance art. ϢereSpielChequers 12:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Following on from Wikidemon's idea, other possibilities are 2014 Columbia University art dispute or 2014 Columbia University performance-art dispute. Sarah (SV) 20:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I know "controversy" is a bit overused but how about 2014 Columbia University performance-art controversy. It can cut many ways. There's controversy in how universities fail to deal with sexual assault (from victim's POV), how they fail to ensure that the accused are protected (due process/harassment), and how overall nobody is happy (victims/accused) with where we are today.Mattnad (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I like 2014 Columbia University sexual assault controversy. Or maybe 2014 Columbia University sexual assault performance art controversy Except that makes it sound like the performance art is based on people committing sexual assault for the purposes of art. Which would probably be notable if it happened, but definitely did not happen. :(.--Shibbolethink 20:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about including "sexual assault" in the title that way, because, to me at least, it comes across as implying that the sexual assault allegations are true. "2014 Columbia University performance-art controversy" (Mattnad's suggestion) sounds reasonable to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That would work for me. Sarah (SV) 22:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Would we need to include the year? 2014 isn't technically accurate because the controversy has spanned into 2015, but I'm not aware of any other performance-art controversies at Columbia, so it seems Columbia University performance-art controversy might do. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this case/story spans several years, it would make sense to drop the 2014. Plus, given the specificity of Columbia University performance-art, it's very unlikely we'd have another article incorporating that portion of the name anytime soon. So dating it may not be necessary. Is there a naming convention that would require a year?Mattnad (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't need a year. Columbia University performance-art controversy is a good solution. It keeps the focus on the art, its causes and consequences, but removes the title of the work. Sarah (SV) 05:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• No. Absent the mattress carrying there would be nothing about this that would merit a Misplaced Pages article. It's an article concerning an artwork about which there is a controversy, not a controversy about which there is an artwork. The current title is therefore the right one. Formerip (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Columbia University Mattress Performance controversy? To avoid the disputed term "art" (see section above).--82.113.106.143 (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the "disputed term" art is really a disputed term. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it could be described as art. Maybe it's a bit boring and ordinary, but it's art. We Germans should be cautious to say what's art and what's not - especially if the artist is of Jewish descent.--Cyve (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• No. Moving from the name of the artwork to a contrived title would likely invite more discussion of , a change for the worse BLP-wise. Anyhow, a proper move discussion should probably take place on the talk page, not buried in a subsection of a noticeboard discussion. gobonobo 13:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• No name neither, delete the article, she wants to be named, so wikipedia is promoting her by continuing publishing the minor reported story and all this discussion by users that support promoting her as an attempt to publish his name on wikipedia are quite tiresome to read, they are both one event living people WP:BLP1E , only of local interest, that will vanish from the horizon in the very near future. WP:NAME AND WP:CRIME both also reject this articles existence within wikipedias own policies and guidelines Govindaharihari (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This subject has received international coverage for over six months, and the woman concerned coverage for over a year. The allegations at the heart of this matter first appeared in the press in December 2013. If you believe the article should be deleted, then nominate it for deletion You should have an option at the top of the page, and ask a sysop to add the notice to the page. Martin451 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a bit of a discussion regarding renaming the article on its Talk page (here). Bus stop (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a formal page move discussion here: --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a few editors at the Carly Fiorina article who believe that a few editorial lists calling her (or asking if she was) the "worst CEO ever" is not just biographical, but a critical component of the lede of her article here at Misplaced Pages. It was determined by consensus some time ago that prominently highlighting the few "worst CEO ever" lists she's appeared on weren't appropriate for the lede of a wp:blp. And, of the three sources most recently being used to assert that "many reporters" called her "the worst ever," one is an unattributed (no editor or "reporter") clickbait listicle, one is a blog that also calls her an "asshole" (apparently of its own determination, not a quote), and one is a recent opinion piece that uses the question in the headline and never really addresses it (but does address a lot of other interesting stuff).

I've reverted the most blatant violations a few times now. I've also made a number of other edits to try to improve the lede (including the fact that she laid off 30,000 people, removing the unsourced assertion that the merger "made" the company lose half its value, included the fact that her resignation was "forced," cited the original reason stated by the company for her resignation, and so forth). I'm — by no means — here to "whitewash" the article (a common assertion against any editor who disagrees with the small number of editors who seem to really dislike the subject of this article). Despite my explanation of the major issues with the sourcing and the wp:cherry nature of the "worst ever" opinion being included in the lede, it has once again been restored. Given Fiorina's recently-declared, long shot candidacy for the Republican nomination, I suspect the article will continue to be a battleground between editors who love or hate her. I don't have strong feelings either way, and its clear the other two editors intend to vigorously protect their "worst ever" version regardless of my best attempts to explain why it is bad per wp:blp and otherwise improve the lede, so I'll leave this here. Good luck. Justen (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

CBS news, The Observer, USA Today and The Guardian are reliable sources.

References

1. "Five things to know about Carly Fiorina". cbsnews.com. May 4, 2015.
2. Rory Carroll. "Carly Fiorina will run for president as a successful tech CEO. Silicon Valley says that's a fantasy". the Guardian.
3. Jimmy Soni. "Why Carly Fiorina Should Quit The Republican Primary - Observer". Observer.
4. Tobak, Steve (April 27, 2012). "America's worst CEOs: Where are they now?". CBS News. CBS Moneywatch.
5. Maney, Kevin (February 16, 2005). "Can Fiorina trump competition for 'worst tech CEO' title?". USA Today Money. USA Today.

- Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

All referencing the same three lists (and two of those being self-referential to their own publication). Perhaps I'll write wp:listicles and clickbait are not reliable sources someday. But "many reporters" mentioning — in light of her presidential campaign — the interesting trivia that she was "named the worst CEO ever by a whopping three publications" is intriguing and wp:recentism, but ≠ biographical, and certainly not to the significant extent required for the lede. Justen (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether the Observer, CBS, the Guardian, USA Today and so on are referencing a completely unreliable source. The fact that they deem the source worthy of citing lends legitimacy to the source. Basically, Fiorina has pissed off a wide swath of industry observers with her inaccessible top-down style of management, her self-promotional style of leadership, her inability to admit to or learn from mistakes, and primarily her extremely poor showing at HP, including the initiatives she pushed forward which made the company lose so much value while sacrificing its ability to innovate, by slashing R&D budgets. She purposely made HP into a huge commodity manufacturer like the makers of toilet paper, rather than continuing to be an inventive market force such as Apple. All of this can and should be added to her biography, to flesh out the reasons why she is such a controversial figure. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the assessment by Binsternet and Cwobeel of Fiorina in my off-Misplaced Pages life, and feel entirely free to mock Fiorina as an individual on Facebook or wherever. But we are not a struggling newspaper trying to generate listicle clickbait hits. Trying to force any kind of inherently non-encyclopedic "worst CEO ever" assessment into this article is unwise, and in my judgment, contrary to the fundamental principles of BLP policy. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's gotten worse, with editors there to prove a point now naming reporters by name in the lede of this wp:blp. I don't disagree with the viewpoint that her tenure at HP was difficult (at best). But I can separate my point of view and edit the article within the guidelines of our policies and pillars. That's, frankly, clearly not the case for a number of the editors at the article currently. Justen (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked up Fiorina as she has been in the news and found the lede nonencyclopedic and journalistic in nature. I agree with Cullen that we might dislike her in nonwikipedia life but an encyclopedia is not a place for judgment or lurid portrayal. She has all the marks of a corporate climber, self-serving and all, but it is not our business to assess what she does, only give people material to make their own decision. Limit-theorem (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Newman

Maurice Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears there is bias being revealed in the Maurice Newman Misplaced Pages biography by the administrator/author who is not allowing current news reports to be included about Maurice Newman's climate change stance in the Australian media.

In Australia, Mr Newman went on record on the 8th May 2015, writing a controversial article in "The Australian" newspaper about why he believed Climate Change was a conspiracy by the UN, to bring in a New World Order.

As Mr Newman is hired in the capacity of Chief Business Adviser to the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and is accountable to the people of Australia, it seems reasonable to have factual information placed on the biography page of Mr Newman. The update today was removed and labeled as slander. How can a current newspaper article describing the controversial stance of Mr Newman, that he authored be considered slander?

Surely this information should be allowed in Misplaced Pages as a fact and not altered because a author has a difference of opinion. It was my understanding that Misplaced Pages was meant to be based on factual evidence. How can the administrator possibly claim the Guardian newspaper article by the new author was legally inaccurate and edited because it was described as slanderous? Who is responsible in Misplaced Pages for bias biography details? ~~Jessica Thompson~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.172.137 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

References

I assume you're talking about this edit, and in my view it was absolutely correct to remove such an NPOV personal attack. Newman's highly unorthodox views should be explained in the article, but that can be done without resorting to snide defamation. Lankiveil 03:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

I believe this biography edit should be reviewed by somebody outside of Australia. Lankiveil If one media source is only being cited as more deserving than other Australian and international media sources it is definitely appearing bias. I intend to raise this issue with Misplaced Pages management. ~~Jessica Thompson~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.200.176 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Arun Shourie and Wikileaks

Is it ok to link to this Wikileaks page in the External links section of a BLP, ie: Arun Shourie? I can't recall seeing it done elsewhere before but doubtless it has happened. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not ok ever, the content at wikileaks has been stolen, it's not an independent reporting source and there is no verification that what is published is correct - its not a wp:rs. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

David Deptula

David Deptula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

David Deptula I am the person whom this article is talking about. As a former high ranking government official I do not want my information displayed to the world on a wikipedia page. It poses a threat to me and my family. I request that you please remove it. Thanks for the edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.167.254.39 (talk • contribs)

The article seems to shade in a negative light and its missing all of your accomplishments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slider13422 (talk • contribs)

Hi David, can you clarify how the info in the article poses a threat to you and your family? What's there appears to be a matter of public record, and well-documented, see here and here for example. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, much of the same information can be found on the subject's Linked In page and his Twitter page, both of which are presumably under his control, although not the bits about the drones and the barring. (You can see him having a discussion about drones with NPR here) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The information is missing key points. I would prefer that my information not be displayed in so many locations publicly. I'm sure you are aware of current events. If anyone needs my biography it is posted Here A biography is an account of someones life....this is a 3 sentance summary missing massive amounts of content and information pulled out of context. That is why I request it be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.167.254.39 (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If your concern is that it is missing key points and is too short, please realize that Misplaced Pages pages frequently start small and expand as various editors pay attention to them. If there are specific points you believe are worthy of coverage, I recommend that you post them on Talk:David Deptula so that editors can evaluate them and integrate them as appropriate (listing third-party sources that cover the information would help). If there is some specific reason why listing information on Misplaced Pages that is already available in significant other sources is of particular threat to you and your family, I'd appreciate some clarification on that so it can be addressed. If you believe that you are not of sufficient notability for Misplaced Pages to be covering you, you can call for a deletion discussion using the Articles For Deletion process. (If you have any associates who edit Misplaced Pages regularly, they may be able to help you on how best that is to be done. Otherwise, if you request, I can help you set up that request, although I may end up arguing against deletion myself.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I just expanded the article using the USAF public domain information referenced by the subject above, using the article on the current USAF Chief of Staff as a model. I will probably do more later, but this appears to be a comment on the negative information rather than a true safety concern. Nothing in the article points to any information that would help someone to physically harm LtGen Deptula. GregJackP Boomer! 16:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert H. Richards IV

Robert H. Richards IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The new article Robert H. Richards IV is concerning to me because of the seriousness of what is being described in the article. Although it is verifiable, I am not entirely sure this is compliant with BLP which is why I am bringing it here. Also, it may violate WP:BLP1E and it seems doubtful that he meets WP:PERP. Everymorning talk 01:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That needs to head up straight to AFD per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

While WP:BLPCRIME requires us to presume a person innocent until proven guilty, it does not require us to presume him innocent after proven guilty. The sourcing is adequate and I find nothing wrong with the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: WP:CRIME states "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." This happened ten years ago and was still being covered in 2014. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• This was not only covered nationally, but internationally. Additionally, the 2014 lawsuit alleges a second case of child abuse, this of his toddler son, and reported as being disclosed during his probation meeting and lie-detector tests. Finally, Richards pleaded guilty to avoid a mandatory minimum 10-year sentence. Sammy1339 is right. GregJackP Boomer! 03:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this being a stand-alone BLP, even if he is, it would seem, a terrible person. It seems to me that the information should be incorporated in an article either about the case, or on the judge, rather than on the perp. Lankiveil 03:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

On what policy grounds? WP:BLP doesn't require that we censor articles when there are multiple sources, the perp confessed, it is covered internationally, and over a period of years. GregJackP Boomer! 03:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I will bring this to AFD, where it can be discussed. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert H. Richards IV - Cwobeel (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy#A Counterpoint to Newsweek's View of Gamergate

In the course of debating my qualifications, several untrue statements have been made about me in this discussion. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Auerbachkeller, Thank you for raising this issue. I have removed (redacted) the statements made about you, that I thought might be problematic, from the Talk page; and closed the discussion at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Auerbach.27s_response_regarding_expertise.

Some discussion still appears in the conversation at Talk:Gamergate controversy#A Counterpoint to Newsweek's View of Gamergate, and the removed information still exists in the page history; it would require an Admin to remove it from there. Please advise this page if you feel an issue still exists with the content on the page proper, or if you feel information should also be removed from history. - Ryk72 08:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yaakov Moshiach

Yaakov Moshiach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article seems to be a BLP violation because the man who burned the crosses is not identified in most of the sources I could find that discuss this incident do not identify the name of the man who did it, including the sources cited in the article. Other sources that don't identify the perpetrator include and Everymorning talk 22:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nvm, it seems to have been deleted and salted. Everymorning talk 11:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Amber Rudd

I believe Aphra Behn was the first female British playwrit not Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.171.177 (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Walter O'Brien

I am concerned about the BLP ramifications of this comment on the Talk page. Seeking this board's wisdome in how to handle it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP talk page violation - removed and warned the user, he has been blocked previously and has warnings, looking at his edits, he is trolling, on talkpages and could easily and should be blocked for such indefinitely, any admin can see the associated block log https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AEnchev+EG. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Muchos grassius. CorporateM (Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

help desk issue

Just removed a major (imo) BLP-issue on the help desk with ]. Just notifying here, if anyone wants to look into the issue more closely, or disagrees with this removal and wants to revert. GermanJoe (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Razzies

The Golden Raspberry Awards (aka the Razzies) are annual awards for the "worst" in American cinema. I recently deleted (and redeleted, when someone restored) the bulk of the article Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screen Combo, because it was a listing of "winners" of the award and it had no source. Claiming someone won an award for being the "worst" without having a source is a pretty clear WP:BLP violation. It should not be hard for someone to source and verify the list, and thus restore it. Would someone here like to take that effort on? I would really prefer not to do so myself, as promoting that someone declared various creative individuals the "worst" is not within my comfort zone. I would also suspect that there are articles on other Razzie categories that are similarly unsourced, and could use attention from someone with BLP concerns in mind. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It took me roughly two minutes to find the following sources:

http://www.razzies.com/history/2015/2015-screen-combo.html

http://www.razzies.com/history/34th-worst-screen-combo-winner.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/2012-worst-screen-couple-winner.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/2011-worst-screen-couple-winner.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/2010-worst-screen-couple-winner.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/09winners.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/08winners.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/07winners.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/06winners.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/05winners.asp

I really don't see the point of deleting things that are easily verified like this. Our BLP policy is to protect LPs from claims that might not be true, not from claims that are almost certainly true but lack inline sourcing. You should use your judgement and tag those. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not wish to spend my time verifying these attacks on creative people; that's the responsibility of those who wish to include them in the encyclopedia. I did not feel like assuming that they were true, I have certainly seen false similar information here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say that in this case it would have been better to just let someone here know that the article needed sourcing and that you did not want to do it since you personally disagree with the idea of the Razzies. (If I'm interpreting this correctly.) Removing the information and then going to BLP/N to say that they need to be sourced and that you won't do it doesn't entirely give off the best impression since it may not be seen as helpful. That way the material would still be there and someone would be able to verify the awards. As far as attacks on creative professionals go... that's sort of debatable. There are more than a few people who have been nominated for these awards and gleefully accepted them in person (or at least have spoken about them without sounding like they were hurt). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree. I don't think we should have unreferenced personal attacks sitting in article space. That seems a pretty low standard to me. I didn't revdel the material or anything, I left it all there one undo away in the history. I took the time to call attention to it, should anyone be willing to address the problem. At the time that someone is willing to source it, it can be restored, but it should definitely not be sitting there and unsourced. If anyone wants to consider me to be "not helpful" when I'm taking the time to post both here and on the article talk page to note the problem where people who might be willing to source it would be found, then that is a problem with their perception. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Would it have been too much to ask that you spend one minute typing into Google and looking at the first page of results before deciding whether to delete or mark with ? If you are not willing to put in even a minimal effort at seeing whether something is verifiable, you shouldn't be involved in dealing with this sort of issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nat, two things: 1) You may not "wish" to spend time with an easily verifiable fact, but if you edit Misplaced Pages, you should do it anyway. 2) The Razzies are, in fact, notable, thus not a "personal attack" like you keep them.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

May I note something? With all of you taking your time to tell me how I should be spending my time on Misplaced Pages, telling me what the article should now look like, telling me how I should ignore what I see as both the letter and the spirit WP:BLP, or effectively suggesting that if I'm handling those concerns, it is my duty to address everything on Misplaced Pages -- with all of that, you know how much time any of you have taken to actually fix the problem article (whether you think the "problem" is the item I addressed through deletion and calling for hands, or the "problem" is my edits)? None. Zero. Zip. The article remains unedited since I posted here. So if any of you feels like continuing to berate me for not editing the article by your personal standards, or to explain to me how unhelpful I'm being with my large amount of hours I've spent on this volunteer project, the link to my talk page will be at the end of this post. If any of you want to do something radical like taking the minute to do the things that you say would take only a minute, rather than berating me for not spending my minute doing them, the article is here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Nat, I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I'm not going to do it is because it doesn't particularly bother me. Formerip (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nat, this isn't a BLP issue. And the items are sourced at their original article. If you follow the wikilink from each year, you'll see the article. If you feel like those links need placed on this article, you are free to copy them over. But removing them by calling them unsourced is simply false.

Saying that unreferenced negative information about an individual is not a BLP issue flies pretty much in the face of the basis of BLP. And we do not generally consider that there might be reference on some other page of Misplaced Pages to be sufficient reference. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and if you think lists are not supposed to have their own references, "all individual items on the list must follow Misplaced Pages's content policies: the core content policies ofVerifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references)". Other Misplaced Pages pages are not suitable references, per WP:WINARS. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Except that the material isn't unreferenced. Just chanting it over and over won't make it true. Further, I didn't say lists don't need references. I said it doesn't necessarily have to be on that page. Fir example, if I list David Caruso on the list of notable people in Miami, there doesn't necessarily need to be a reference shown on that list. When one clicks on Caruso's name, it goes to the article which DOES have a source showing he is a resident of Miami. Thus, it is sourced, but the source doesn't necessarily show on the list. I don't see any consensus here supporting your position. That should make you at least consider that you're not reading the policy right. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Several experienced editors have told you that you are wrong, yet you keep insisting that you are right. You may wish to read WP:1AM for further guidance. You are not going to get what you want from the biographies of living persons noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, at the moment, as some Experienced Editor has readded all that material without adding a single reference, I am doing exactly what Experienced Editor Tokyo Girl told me to do: coming here and pointing out that there is a page full of negative claims about living persons without a single reference. Guy, you may feel free to take all those few minutes you said it would take to go verify all the claims on that page and add reference for them. --Experienced Editor Nat Gertler (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• They are sourced Nat. Why are you the only person in this conversation who doesn't understand that? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is a clear case of WP:IDHT and should be closed. Going back and forth a few more times will accomplish nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Judith Butler

this is not actually about possible libel, but i don't know where else to put this. (possibly on that page's Talk Page, but i thought it might get quicker attention from here, as there isn't an existing Talk Page.)

in the intro part, one sentence jumped at me--"She is also well known for her difficult to understand prose." it's jarring in itself, but it's placement was particularly poor, interrupting the flow so that i found myself thinking, "what theory?" when i read the next sentence. i was going to just edit to move that sentence, but, since it was such a strange thing to write (or say) about a scholar, i went to the referenced source to see just who had made this claim, and why, and how. however, i couldn't find that assertion IN the source. granted, i didn't read the entire thing, but i skimmed it, and then did a search for the following words: "difficult" "prose" "understand" i didn't find use of those words that in any way matched the sentence on the Judith Butler page.

so i deleted it. i saved it, and a screenshot, in case it really was legit, although i also think that one can do an "un-do edit" and it would be back (i'm not terribly familiar with editing articles here--usually i do simple edits). my lack of familiarity leads to my question here--removing that sentence, and its reference, caused the next reference to use the number "4." i went to delete (and save) the actual reference, so that the numbers would again match up, but...i can't. this is all that's in the reference edit area: ==References== Template:Re fli st some sort of style sheet thing, i guess, but i don't know to edit it. (spaces added to the above, in case.)

this is to ask someone to, at least, go to the Judith Butler page and get the reference numbers "correct" again. i have screenshots of the intro part before i took out the sentence; 1 with text, 1 with the reference popped up. but i don't know how to attach them here.

this is what i removed when i took out the sentence: She is also well known for her difficult to understand prose.

oh, i also have never seen "<! --" and "-- >" used before, don't know how to use them, and so wasn't able to do spacing. (note that i put a space in each of those to ensure they weren't active.) i would have started a new paragraph with "She has also actively supported...", for ease of reading, but i couldn't figure out how to do it. i note that those codes aren't used in the rest of the article.

i'm not out here very often, so i may not notice if you try to contact me via this site. yet, i have the screenshots saved, if someone wants them. i'm sure someone here is savvy enough, and "inside" enough, to send a message to my actual email, if so.

thank you for your help in this. sorry this isn't very concise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atelic (talk • contribs) May 12, 2015‎

References

1. "Judith Butler ". The Believer. May 2003. Retrieved 9 October 2013.

The footnote numbers are adjusted automatically when citations are added or removed, so there is nothing to do.- MrX 04:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Stafford_Heginbotham

Can someone review this article, I have some concerns that in places it's going further than the sources would suggest?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added a few citation requests.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Not BLP. Sorry. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Report to the Inspector General into Mobile Telecommunications Licenses in Iraq

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.

Hello all, I wanted to reach out here about an article that I have just nominated for deletion: Report to the Inspector General into Mobile Telecommunications Licenses in Iraq. I should be of interest to editors on this noticeboard since I believe it to be an WP:ATTACK page on former Pentagon official John A. Shaw (Jack Shaw). It was tagged in August 2014 for not being written in an encyclopedic tone but, more crucially, the article relies on original research to make personal and professional claims about Mr. Shaw. I do not believe this article meets WP:GNG anyway, and I think it quite apparent it was created to support a particular narrative that is critical of Mr. Shaw. In the event the AfD fails (fingers crossed this is not the case) then I believe it should be reduced significantly.

Why I think it's an attack page

The article contains material that is original research and makes bold POV claims (e.g. in the article's first line the report is called a "notable piece of fabricated propaganda") not clearly supported by cited sources. There are multiple instances within the article where WP:SYNTHESIS has been used to make statements about the report's background and its implications. For example, within the Results of the report section, an article from The Independent is cited to say, "This report and the affair around it is a small chapter in Iraq reconstruction boondoggles that have been called "A 'Fraud' Bigger Than Madoff" by The Independent." Yet the article in The Independent does not mention Shaw, the report, or even telecoms. A figure mentioned in the article text, Maj. Cockerham, does not appear in The Independent, either. Clearly, the news article is being used to support conclusions not found in it, the very definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. And this is a problem throughout.

The problem extends to Mr. Shaw's article

The article was created by the same editor who had also significantly edited Mr. Shaw's biographical article in the past, adding much negative, controversial and inaccurate content. While I've had help from an impartial editor in addressing some problematic material in the article about Mr. Shaw himself, the page still has some major issues. Not least, much remaining critical content relies on media coverage that has been challenged as inaccurate. Likewise, the article on the report draws from some of the same sources as well as using primary sources in a way that clearly goes against WP:NOR. I'm hoping that editors here who are knowledgeable in the relevant policies would be open to looking at both articles. In particular, I hope editors here may be able to help bring the Jack Shaw article back in line with WP:BLP.

Thanks, and relevant disclosure

In the interests of full disclosure: I do have a financial COI here, in that I'm a paid consultant for Jack Shaw. Because of this, I will not be making any content-related edits myself, hence my efforts to find disinterested editors to offer their input. I'm very much looking forward to discussing this here or on either page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article is unacceptable on many fronts. I have nominated it for WP:CSD#G10 deletion since there is no NPOV version to rollback to. I'm stunned that this article has stood for nearly two years.- MrX 04:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Controversial Reddit communities

As I noted in my edit summary, the lede for a section on the "MensRights" subreddit implied that drawing commentary from a specific person was inherently "controversial", which is obviously a BLP concern - describing a person that way is inherently subjective and carries a negative connotation. The edit was promptly reverted by Parabolist, who characterized it as "pointy vandalism". I object to this in the strongest possible terms, as I cited policy and/or good faith consensus for all my edits to the page, but especially as concerns this BLP issue. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You were right to remove the content. First, it needs a reliable, secondary source, which Reddit is not. It also seems to incorporate some original research.- MrX 03:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Dakota Meyer

• Dakota Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently a number of editors have added content which they claim to be verified by a non-reliable source, which falls under WP:BLPPRIMARY. I first got wind of this via a topic started on the article's talk page. I reverted initially due to WP:BURDEN, and was re-reverted. I hope to avoid an edit war by starting a discussion here. The source provided in the talk page, and described by KarenJ503 does not meet reliable source criteria, and no secondary or tertiary independent confirmation of the source has been provided on the talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is your classic quandary. The event at issue unquestionably occurred, but we have only the primary source. The best resolution I can think of is that the lack of secondary coverage means it's not sufficiently noteworthy to include. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted to find non-primary sources, but have not yet found any. I worry, how much these edits have been caused by this blog post which I found when looking for non-primary source(s). It is an anti-Sarah Palin blog, and since Meyer's engagement with a member of the Palin family, this might have lead to the addition of the content in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a tag, a BLPPRIMARY source was added, I tagged that due to guideline concerns, that tag was removed. Assistance is requested.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources have not discussed this matter, then it doesn't belong in Meyer's biography. If reliable sources discuss it, then our biography should mention it, without giving it undue weight. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Biography of Dr. Richard Lapchick - unreliable sourcing

The reference given for the first line, "Richard E. Lapchick, is often referred to as the "racial conscience of sport" refers to a page no longer accessible on ncasports.org. It appears to refer to his own self-written biography, which, of course, doesn't tell us who, if anyone, actually calls him the "racial conscience of sport". It seems to be a self-given title. All other references to that nickname that I have found with an internet search on 5/13/2015 simply repeat the quote above, that "Richard E. Lapchick, is often referred to as the "racial conscience of sport" I can't find ANY original use of that phrase, only those who say that someone else said it.

There is a newer article on the ncasports.org site that repeats the nickname in slightly different words, "Richard Lapchick has been called many things: the racial conscience of sport, a human rights leader,..." but it was written 3/18/2015 by his daughter and is not the source of this oft repeated statement that goes at least back prior to 2002, for I found this same wording written all the way back in October 22, 2002, at "Often described as the "racial conscience of sport," Lapchick will discuss..."

There is no proof that anyone has called him this other than himself and his daughter.

216.16.210.199 (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Loralee Holiman

• I'm performing a Google search and so far the only things that describe him as such are various primary sources like these: , , . It looks like people list it on pages, but mostly because it seems to be something that he puts in his press releases and official bios, which many places will just quote verbatim when they feature him somehow. I've yet to find anything that describes him as such in their own words. If I can't find anything then I'd recommend just removing it from the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• I took a quick peek at the page and I ended up removing it since not only is it completely unsourced, but it's also written in a somewhat promotional manner. The entire article has a fairly promotional, non-neutral tone vibe to it, so the article as a whole could probably stand to be de-puffed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

1. http://www.ncasports.org/2015/03/18/my-dad-richard-lapchick/
2. http://www.stcloudstate.edu/news/scsunow/default.asp?storyID=3835

Stacey Dash article

At Stacey Dash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 172.250.76.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) showed up to change content of the article regarding the name of one of Dash's children and who the father of that child is. I reverted the IP because the material was unsourced, and the edit looked sketchy (the Stacey Dash article commonly gets WP:Vandalized). The IP showed back up with a source. I reverted the IP, stating, "Find a better source than Daily Mail, per various WP:BLP noticeboard discussions." and "Per various WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussions as well. Anyway, if poor sources and/or unsourced content keeps getting added to this article, I will post a notice at the WP:BLP noticeboard." The IP showed back up to re-add the information without sourcing it, stating, "This information is incorrect as are the sources. Google 'James Maby Lola Maby Stacey Dash' and you will see a number of articles and photographs." So I've brought the matter here. We obviously need to use the best sources for this content. And if sources conflict on this matter, we should either report both aspects if, per WP:Due weight, both aspects warrant mentioning, or not include any of the material. If the WP:Reliable sources overwhelmingly support one side, we should go with that. Since the IP was determined to add the content, and knows how to source the content, I didn't see a need to address the IP on his or her talk page. But I will alert the IP to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless the child is notable by themselves, we should not be including minors names in articles. Which as far as I know is general practice here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur. And I find the practice of including the full names and birth dates of non-notable children to be amazingly foolish -- it's an invitation for identity theft in this era of online fraud. Non-notable children, especially minor children, should not be named unless their names have already been widely circulated in the media. If you have reliable sources for the subject BLP's significant other and non-notable children, it's always preferable to simply state, for example, that X and Y have a daughter and two sons together, or words to that effect. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

: I'm fine with removing their names, though I do commonly see the names of public figures' non-notable children included in the Misplaced Pages articles for those public figures. For example, Michael Jackson. Then again, in Michael Jackson's case, the children are also famous; so that goes to what Dirtlawyer1 stated ("unless their names have already been widely circulated in the media"). Going back to the Stacey Dash case, there is also the matter of the IP changing the father's name. Flyer22 (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that the "fathered by" text needs to be there either. Flyer22 (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that the aforementioned content (and other content) was added by this IP in April; I'd missed that. I have a huge WP:Watchlist, and I can overlook the Stacey Dash article when I see reverts at it and assume that any recent bad or dubious edits have been reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Toronto Symphony Orchestra article (talk)

This page has been the subject of repeated biased edits and the point of view is becoming politicized and polarized. Needs some attention.

Karla F.C. Holloway

I contend that these edits by Rms125a@hotmail.com violate our BLP policy by placing waaaaay undue interest on the subject's membership in the so-called Group of 88 (itself a troubled article). I mean, that she gave up her seat on a sup-group (?) of a committee is of minor importance and seems to serve only as an opportunity to introduce two long quotes criticizing her. Let it be noted also that the section has been tagged as of doubtful accuracy, and that the sup-group stuff is sourced to a book by Don Yaeger, a rather sensationalist sports writer, and Mike Pressler, who is hardly a disinterested party here. I note also that Rms125a doesn't seem to be the most objective editor here, considering the racial slur I just removed from the Holloway talk page as a BLP violation; Rms should be the last one to remove an NPOV tag from the article.

In short, some of this content is fine--note my pared-down version--but what we have now is excessive. I'll gladly take a legal opinion as well; fortunately we have Newyorkbrad on retainer, and Philippe (WMF) tells me the check is in the mail, NYB. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think your version is about right, although Rms did have a good source in Until Proven Innocent (just finished reading it myself). Maybe another sentence or two based on UPI would be warranted, as it discusses her role in the blatant race-baiting which was so central to the case (one of her comments pertaining to the case that got a lot of attention was "White guilt is black innocence, and white innocence is black guilt"), but other than that I think yor version is good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution