Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

The article of Roman Reigns seems to be under some trolling, his ringname changed to "Dogma Deigns" and profile picture changed to a shot of a doberman.

Under a straight quote from the article

"Leati Joseph "Joe" Anoaʻi (born May 25, 1985) is an American professional wrestler and a retired defensive tackle in Canadian football. Anoaʻi is signed to WWE, where he performs under the ring name Dogman Deigns." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.204.89 (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked User:89.164.192.182 and leveraged the exception for BLPs about 3RR in these interactions per documentation at Talk:Francine Prose. I would welcome further review of my actions, and/or feedback or opinions on the addition, and treatment of the topic on the talk page of the article. Cheers, Sadads (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some hot heads are camping the article. Using BLP sanctions is the right thing to do. Darx9url (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are currently no citations concerning his Arrests that claim that he is a registered sex offender. Someone needs to find this information and cite it properly within his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.47.18 (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article a little, but the claim is referenced to a primary source via The Smoking Gun. Typically, we don't count it as a reliable source, and such a claim needs a pretty good bunch of sourcing. If it's true I'd imagine it will continue to be re-added to the article again over the long term.

An unusual scenario which I have never encountered before in my 9+ years of editing - ex-soccer player Danny Light seemingly died a number of months ago. While there is no RS confirming his death, it has been confirmed on an internet forum by a well-respected soccer historian and will be mentioned when said historian releases an updated edition of his book. In the meantime, what can we do? GiantSnowman 12:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I have ever ran into this situation before either. I'd suggest keeping his death off the page until it can be confirmed by a reliable source. Any idea when the updated edition of the soccer historian's book will be released? Meatsgains (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this one to GiantSnowman's attention. The last book was 2011, the one before that was 1989, but if there's a re-print of the 2011 it's possible the information could be up-dated. I will try to contact the author and see where he got his information and if he's got any newspaper reports etc. Eagleash (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS says. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." A forum post may be OK, if it's, without doubt, written by a reliable football historian. Darx9url (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so anybody who would like to contribute to the discussion is aware, the historian concerned is Ian King, author of Crystal Palace: A Complete Record 1905–2011. The Derby Books Publishing Company. ISBN 9781780910468.. There is of course always room for doubt as to a person's true identity over the internet. I have had direct contact previously and am reasonably sure that it's genuine. Eagleash (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman has found a pretty good ref. from a former club's website. So now resolved. Thanks to all for input. Eagleash (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kashi Samaddar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was kept with wrong data for long time. It could be Political or rivalry. I checked Internet well and found that 1. Mr Samaddar objected to Daily Mail intentional error news 2. Daily Mail put other errors ike "all 201 countries" fo... ==

Hello, I have done extensive research on Kashi Samaddar and hope that some good persons at Wikepedia will look to this report sincerely and safeguard Kashi Samaddar article and retain good image. This article is very important but has been attacked owing to jealousy/ competition as experienced and kept with errors intentionally for long time. I tried to improve but being disturbed last few days insisting errors. Kindly note:

1. His first World Record is on 27th May 2008 and not May 2008.

2. "All 201 Countries" by Daily Mail favoring Mr Graham Hughes is wrong as Mr Hughes got Guinness certificate of 193 countries? So why you are insisting and put this? Obviously to misguide people.

3. Daily Mail Journalist attacked Mr Samaddar with errors which Mr Samaddar reported errors, check Internet including Kashi Samaddar Adventure.

4. Few weeks after news on Mr Graham Hughes "All 201 Countries", Daily mail published for another British Person " All 196 Countries". So, for travel records concerned, reporting of Daily Mail is biased. USSYguy call this as genuine, obviously he is also biased- Remove all Daily Mail links.

5. You did not give any value to genuine news of many other Media from Developing World, about the Visa problems faced by Mr Samaddar, his great Mission to help people and extra ordinary achievements with a Developing World Nation passport- to help whole world.

6. Other people who visited all Countries includes few names like Gordon Brown who do not have certificate! Have you seen his certificate? why to add this link? Must be removed.

7. Mr Samaddar did not plan his trip before! How you know? It is Daily Mail ploy- so must avoid. He was traveling and pushing for equal visa for long end of 20th century but at Johannesburg, it added more fuel. Please delete as irrelevant.

8. All along except Travel time leaves without salaries, Mr Samaddar is a high salaried Business Executive/ Director (An Engineer & MBA see Linkedin Kashi Samaddar)but some Media made Businessman from Business Executive wrongly. We can accept Business Executive or Business Executive turned Adventurer.

9. My edits are true, genuine with supporting and neutral.

10. Kindly understand and retain my edits and support genuine / Truth with supporting links having certificates from World Bodies, who spoke what, developments etc and good image of Wikipedia. --Editwikigu (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really should have started a discussion about this at Talk:Kashi Samaddar before bringing it here. At least you are now showing a willingness to discuss the issue. But even if you think you are correct, you should not continue changing the article to the way you wish it to be, as that is considered edit-warring. Hopefully you will be patient and talk about this issue. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_King_(Texas_politician)

On Texas State Representative Phil King's wikipedia page there are constantly edits being made in order to defame Representative King. A section titled "Ethics Violations and Claims of Corruption" consistently appears despite our efforts to keep it off. These are grossly exaggerated or false statements that are being put under his name solely for political purposes. Our team keeps an eye on the edits as best we can, however it seems as soon as we take down the comments, they appear again within days or sometimes even minutes.

Please let me know what can be done to stop this issue.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.138.94 (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@174.47.138.94: Who is "our team," and who is the "we" you speak of? Sounds like you might need to read up on wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that the statements complained of have multiple citations to reliable sources. Why, exactly, are they outside of policy? GregJackP Boomer! 04:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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: [1] 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. [2] (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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia is not in the business of punishing people for attempting to seek legal remedies. Formerip (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'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)[reply]

• 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., [3], [4]). His name is as public as the name of the alleged victim. --SonicY (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

Yes As other users have pointed out, stating his name in the article is not breaking any Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia to use his name which has been in the headlines for over a year. --SonicY (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [redacted]'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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia censor the context, particularly when it is so important to the articles subject. - RatRat- Talk    02:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• Yes. WP:BLPNAME doesn't preclude us from coming to a consensus to mention [redacted] 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 [redacted] 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 ^{+ c} 05:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you wouldn't support removing Meili's name from Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

"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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 [redacted] and Sulkowicz's very public names would clearly improve the article. --SonicY (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

No, I understand completely. More than one person has accused him, therefore Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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 Wikipedia.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) ^(talk) 06:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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) ^(talk) 08:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]

• Tokyogirl79, thanks for doing that. Will be interesting to see if they respond. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Yes; widely disseminated name, including due to his own actions. --GRuban (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 [redacted]'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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have you seen some of the sources discussing the topic on which we are writing an article: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. 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."[11] 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)[reply]

Happily, Wikipedia is not an art criticism site.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

See [12], [13], and User talk:Guy Macon#Mattress --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Redacting [redacted]'s name from the talk page was unnecessary. His name appears in multiple reliable sources[14] and he has spoken publicly about the situation.- MrX 12:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This guy gets it--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia'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." -- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
Including the name of the accused does nothing to improve the article, and violates Wikipedia's BLP policy. This includes naming him on Wikipedia talk pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

How does including [redacted]'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 [redacted]'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)[reply]

"The media did it first" is not a valid reason to violate Wikipedia'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. Wikipedia'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)[reply]

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 [redacted] committed a crime. By the way, the [redacted] young man is not "the accused in a criminal case" either.- MrX 21:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What part of

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia'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." -- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

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

Why are you freaking out? You have made no assertion, plausible or otherwise, that using [redacted]'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)[reply]

• Here is yet another editor who insists on naming the accused:[15] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, even if they are publicly connected to their username outside of Wikipedia. ― Padenton|✉   18:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Yes My reading of the BLP policy is that we should avoid "outing" people, but [redacted] 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 [Sollecito] Nblund (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia." 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. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia'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." -- Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia from naming anyone who didn't personally and explicitly post their personal information directly to Wikipedia. That's not really a tenable argument IMHO Nblund (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• Yes. As long as we adhere to WP:BLPTALK we're well within bounds to use [redacted]'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 ^{+ c} 13:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [redacted] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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) ^(talk) 07:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies than admit that this article is inherently biased. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Art can be political whilst still being art. ϢereSpielChequers 20:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No. He is not alleging rape, so that would be inaccurate. We could perhaps name it Emma Sulkowicz and [John Doe's] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The accused should not be named -- in the article or on any Wikipedia talk page -- while there is an ongoing discussion about whether naming the accused violates Wikipedia'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oooh, yeah, that's a good alternative. I like that a lot.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Admittedly, it should probably be partially italicized. Like Mattress Performance case--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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) ^(talk) 18:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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) ^(talk) 19:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 [xxxx] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That would work for me. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) ^(talk) 05:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Absent the mattress carrying there would be nothing about this that would merit a Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• No. Moving from the name of the artwork to a contrived title would likely invite more discussion of [redacted], 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 ^{+ c} 13:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The user appears to be editing Noel Cox and removing parts of the article which come from verified newspapers. 86.181.149.124 (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not quite correct. I changed the statement because it firstly wasn't what the paper said, and second I added a note that the situation reported by the paper was subject to an internal university appeal which found that the press release, on which the media report was based, was wrong. It was also libellous, and could still end up in court.Ncox (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever is correct, it seems most probable that Ncox should probably stop editing Noel Cox in favour of the talk page. That might be raised at WP:COIN instead of here, but.... Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 16:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I haven't made any edits since yesterday, but have raised some possible changed on the Talk page.Ncox (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naya Nazimabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The entire article is focused on defaming the owners of Naya Nazimabad. The article has caused untold damages to the entity of Naya Nazimambad. It also violates wikipedia rules on "Neutral point of view (NPOV)"

Check this line under "Chemical Dump" heading

"An case was filed in the Sindh High Court (SHC) against the Naya Nazimabad residential scheme near Manghopir that has allegedly been launched despite a report claiming that the area has been used dumping ground for dangerous chemicals. These toxic Chemicals are hazardous substances which could harm human health and/or the environment."

"A study commissioned on the directives of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has found that the populations residing in Gadap Town and nearby areas such as Naya Nazimabad are prone to cancer-like diseases through Asbestos, a chemical that can affect the population in neighborhood as it is air-borne"

The article also defames "Shunaid Qureshi, a developer of Naya Nazimabad. Check the following lines under the "Chemical Dump" heading:

"There is has been coverup to downplay the contamination of Naya Nazimabad in Pakistan's media. Shunaid Qureshi, developer of Naya Nazimabad, CEO Al Abbas Sugar Mills and former Chairman of Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PASMA) was arrested in January 2014.[7] Shunaid Qureshi is a son of Hum TV director Sultana Siddiqui, nephew of businessman Jahangir Siddiqui, brother-in-law of Television producer Momina Duraid and the cousin of actor Sheheryar Munawar Siddiqui."

Hence, I believe the page should be deleted entirely for violating the rule on "Neutral point of view (NPOV)"

It's also a WP:COATRACK, and WP:CRIME case

Rosemaryujoh (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is for violations of Biographies of Living Persons (BLP)- Naya Nazimabad is a place not a person so this isn't the correct place to report it (I'm not sure what the correct place is). I've tagged the article as needing cleanup- improving an article is always better than deleting it. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joseph2302, where then do I report it? Actually, it was written to defame the place and at the end, the key person Shunaid Qureshi) in the area was also defamed. An attack bio written on "Shunaid Qureshi" which points to the same issues has already been reported here but it was redirected to this "Naya Nazimabad" page.

Where do I report it. We want it completely deleted. Someone was contracted to write it. Rosemaryujoh (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just have it deleted. First you should try to discuss it with other editors on the article talk page. If that's not fruitful, then you could raise your specific concerns about the article's neutrality at WP:NPOV/N. You should read WP:DR for more guidance.- MrX 22:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a BLP issue that deserves to be discussed here. Flat Out recently removed most of the article's contents [16] citing WP:BLPCRIME. I am not very familiar with the subject, and am reluctant to risk violating a person's privacy, but it does seem like a subject of considerable significance which ought to be covered better. It also seems like the people accused may be public figures. I'd like to solicit people's opinions on how to handle this case. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being libeled by a troll seeking to dishonor my past national service as a clandestine case officer (who then rejected spying and became a leading proponent for Open Source Intelligence). I have used the Talk section there to no avail. Suggesting that I am a liar about my past service when that past service is recognized by multiple sources including two Senators writing Forewords to my first two books on intelligence, is libel. In accordance with Wikipedia policy I ask that you either revert to the incomplete but accurate version that existed previously; consider using the accurate and neutral version I have posted on the talk page, or delete the page entirely.

Very respectfully, Robert David Steele Vivas 68.98.139.15 (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. The article already has a reliable source for you having worked for the CIA, I found and added a second one as well so I've changed the wording on this. The page does seem to need some work, but please note that your own websites aren't considered reliable sources for wikipedia articles, what we need is independent, third-party sources (like newspapers, non self-published books, etc). Fyddlestix (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you haven't already, please read WP:COI - I note that you've primarily been discussing things on the talk page rather than trying to edit the article yourself, which is the correct approach, but it's always good to make sure people are aware of COI guidelines in this situation. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I note that it is proposed to delete this entry citing its dependence upon only two third parties and that it appears to be "a vanity project". I consider the deletion proposal to be motivated by enmity to the subject from a person, or persons, unknown who may have suffered personal loss as a consequence of the subject's known successes as a company turn around specialist with a proven record in this field.

I find nothing factually incorrect in the article but would comment that the footnote alluding to the subject's impending appointment as the Chairman of the National Trust of England & Wales is now an established fact and the subject is now in post [see National Trust website and current issue of Country Life magazine].

I recommend that the deletion proposal for the Tim Parker article be struck out as being mischievously motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.129.251 (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]