Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Naming

Just to comment, a lot of the Wikipedia policy arguments for not naming this guy in the article went out the window the minute he filed a lawsuit. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should probably go ahead and name him now.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

/me places finger on nose, just so, as if to say, "Not it!". Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Complaint

Full text: [1].--Cyve (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

since we now have the complaint, we can finally get the other side of the story. Currently this article presents Solkowticz perspective. Now we can have his perspective too, as described in the press. I was surprised to read her love notes in there, and the theory that she was a scorned woman. If we can still suggest he's a rapist based on her say so, fairness is that we add his view of things. After all, the school,found him not responsible as well.64.134.224.134 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We can't add text directly from lawsuits to Wikipedia (they're primary sources and in support of one POV). We should only add text from this lawsuit if it is quoted in other reliable sources and what is asserted in the suit is described as "alleged".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

we can add quotes as mentioned in reliable sources. Also this article is very much one sided from sulkowicz perspective. It's already mostly from one pov (hers). The accusation section mentions the Facebook postings, but then mostly mentions her concerns about young. It does not mention any of what young wrote and quoted. It should be more balanced. If an article quotes from, and links to the lawsuit, we should be able to pull from it as well.64.134.224.134 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It contains these snippets that Cathy Young published and quotes Emma as writing this to Paul: "I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz" after the alleged rape, and this text "Nungesser had invited Sulkowicz to come to a party, and she responded affirmatively, and that she subsequently messaged him saying "I want to see yoyououoyou". Some of this is in the "Outcome of Sulkowicz's hearing" section.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

exactly. Almost nothing from nungessers perspective. If we are naming him now because he filed a lawsuit, then we must also provide more balance. At this point, this article even has more space dedicated to the reaction quotes from sulkowicz than details of actual lawsuit. ----

I have being censored for having reported the words by Emma as contained in the complaint, with the motivation that lawsuits cannot be reported. But at the same time the whole article reports the false accusations against Paul. Columbia U. has been sued for having practiced the same double standard. AnnSec (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization and naming Nungesser

I agree with previous talk comments, I think we should systematically revise this article to reflect Nungesser, his identity, etc. He's self-outed in public, and has filed a lawsuit. I'm gonna be working on this today and tomorrow probably.-Let me know here if you think I've acted rashly or improperly.-Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, we definitely will need to add content regarding Nungesser's lawsuit, as the situation unfolds, but "systematically revising" the entire article doesn't seem necessary at this point. Also, some of the recent edits seem a bit out of balance. For example, the bio section for Paul Nungesser is about 4 times as long as the bio section for Emma Sulkowicz. I mean, it's nice that Nungesser's dad is a schoolteacher who "works with troubled children who are victims of abuse" and is apparently a great guy, but what does that have to do with mattress performance or the lawsuit?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's NPOV to include both details of his parents and her parents. We should at least know what they do. That's a paraphrasing of the source, we could definitely trim it down to just "schoolteacher."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, when I said systematic revision, I meant that we should name the guy in every instance that previously said accused, and also to revise the depiction of the back and forth they've engaged in to have parity. I think the way it looks now is pretty good. I wouldn't change much else. Is there anything else @BoboMeowCat: that you would refer to as an unbalanced edit?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with naming him in the article....calling him "the accused" was awkward anyway, and seems unnecessary now.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Pic of Nungesser currently in article

Where did this picture come from? I didn't see any pictures of Nungesser in any of the articles discussing this case, and nothing resembling this pic popped up in a google image search of his name. Do we have confirmation that this is actually him? Even if it is him, should we be the only high profile source on the net publishing his picture?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The picture apparently comes from the video on this page, which confirms that it is actually him. However, the picture has been tagged for deletion (by me and by an IP editor) because it violates WP:NFCC #1, in that a free equivalent could potentially be created (WP:NFC#UUI). —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty pro-fair use, but this was probably inevitable. I'll see if I can russle up a fair-use picture of him, or find someone who has a picture they'd be willing to license as CC. All these articles talk about the "numerous pictures" taken of him in the process of this controversy, but the internet has none to be found. Worse comes to worst, I'll just ask him via email.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:, you wrote regarding obtaining a pic of Nungesser: "Worse comes to worst, I'll just ask him via email". Are you acquainted with Paul Nungesser and/or editing on his behalf?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I literally meant I would cold-call him via email, and be like "I'm editing this wikipedia page about you, would you like me to put a flattering picture?" I have no COI, I just heard about the lawsuit and started editing.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I mean, it seems like you edit in support of Nungesser, but POV isn't COI, and you seem pretty collaborative regarding balancing etc. I suppose Nungesser is fair game now that he's made himself notable in his own right if you do locate a picture, and I know there is the view that a pic humanizes him, but I personally don't think you'd be doing him any favors to include his pic here. There's probably a reason he isn't sitting down to be photographed for these interviews. Article text says he's being harassed on campus, but I imagine once he steps off campus, he's just another anonymous face in NYC. Publish his pic on WP, and he might end up being called a rapist by random strangers on the subway. Sulkowicz has already made her appearance known via multiple public appearances, so that ship has sailed with her, but not Nungesser.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I would caution you to avoid pigeonholing me as supportive of Nungesser in any way. My main objective is to name him as much as possible and clarify the situation with all WP:RS objective facts. If we do that properly, then people can draw their own conclusions from the material. If I were in favor of Nungesser, why would I be pushing the naming of him instead of "the accused" or in favor of the picture, right? I think you might be confusing my paraphrasing source material badly that is favorable to Nungesser or biased in nature, because few of the truly unbiased sources go into his background! What I'll do is, I'll see if I can find his email or other contact info or even his lawyer's, and send them an email asking if they'd be okay with giving us a pic and releasing it to CC in writing. If they decline, then it doesn't really matter to me, I wouldn't want to aggressively depict someone who doesn't want to be depicted.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Citing opinion pieces

The article currently includes the following statement.

Sulkowicz's complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence, and her request for an appeal was denied.< ref name=valenti>{ {cite web | url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/-sp-campus-rape-prevention-yes-means-yes | title=Beyond 'no means no': the future of campus rape prevention is 'yes means yes' | work=The Guardian | date=2 September 2014 | accessdate=30 October 2014 | author=Valenti, Jessica | authorlink=Jessica Valenti} }\< /ref>

The problem here is that the citation is to The Guardian#Comment is free, which is a "comment and political opinion site". WP:RS, though, states the following.

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers.

Thus, the reference in the article fails WP:RS. I believe that the statement in the article is true though—it just needs a better reference. For that reason, although I have deleted the reference, I left the statement in.  EllieTea (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Repeated reverts regarding spelling

All of the English-language sources I can find use the spelling "Nungesser", and the new sections give undue weight. User:Cyve, please stop edit-warring and discuss this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

His mother is Karin Nungeßer from Berlin. His attorney names him Paul Jonathan Nungesser. But under German name law such a name change is not possible. He is still a Nungeßer. He didn't earn American citizenship yet.--Cyve (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The character “ß” is not in the English-language alphabet; so it must be transliterated.  EllieTea (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is powered by Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. We cannot simply change this guy's name based entirely on your knowledge of german spelling. Yes, it probably is spelled with an Eszett in Germany, but in all american documents, even in their self-published court documents, they use the double s. This is an english language wikipedia, we should default to what they call themselves in english language sources. Also, as for whether it's Jean-Paul Nungesser or Paul Jonathan Nungesser, all of these WP:RSes refer to him as Jean-Paul. In the interview with The Daily Beast, he refers to himself as Jean-Paul. It's Jean-Paul. We cannot default to primary sources, it's against policy.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

His given name is Paul Jonathan Nungesser and his Facebook name is Jean-Paul (see Wall Street Journal).--134.155.36.48 (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, anon, where does the court briefing say that? And even if it does, court briefings are primary sources. WP:RSes prefer secondary sources published by reliable publications.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

page 17, footnote 19.--134.155.36.48 (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We should use name listed in reliable secondary sources. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's his lawyer?! And he is a secondary source.. primary source is his birth certificate. He's from Germany not from France. Why should the parents "Karin" and "Andreas" name him Jean-Paul?? You should ask them, then you have a "realiable secondary source": karin@weibblick.com; andreas.probosch@lycos.de --134.155.36.48 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the "ß": What's with e.g. Hartmut Weiß, Marx Weiß, Robert Weiß, Christoph Preuß, Hugo Preuß, Josefine Preuß, Hans Georg Friedrich Groß, Michael Groß (swimmer), Ricco Groß ?--Cyve (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's how it works. Wikipedia relies on Reliable Sources. That standard is defined here: WP:RS. If the most reliable sources use an Eszett, then the article will too. So look at all those articles, and I would bet GOOD money that you would find that the sources cited refer to those people with an Eszett. That isn't the case in this article. and @134.155.36.48: you should read that standard as well. The subjects covered and their lawyers are not reliable sources. In this instance, I think it's probably a good idea to keep the "Paul Jonathan," it's not hurting anybody. Pragmatism. But the Eszett actively prevents people from searching for this guy. That's against WP's core values.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's probably best at this point to leave both "Jonathan" and "Jean" off until we get confirmation from multiple reliable sources regarding either of those name. Seems most reliable sources just call him "Paul Nungesser" so it seems that's what we should use in the article at this point.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, heres's how it works under German name law: Child's name = family name or mothers name. § 1617a BGB (1) Führen die Eltern keinen Ehenamen und steht die elterliche Sorge nur einem Elternteil zu, so erhält das Kind den Namen, den dieser Elternteil im Zeitpunkt der Geburt des Kindes führt. (2) Der Elternteil, dem die elterliche Sorge für ein unverheiratetes Kind allein zusteht, kann dem Kind durch Erklärung gegenüber dem Standesamt den Namen des anderen Elternteils erteilen. Die Erteilung des Namens bedarf der Einwilligung des anderen Elternteils und, wenn das Kind das fünfte Lebensjahr vollendet hat, auch der Einwilligung des Kindes. Die Erklärungen müssen öffentlich beglaubigt werden. Für die Einwilligung des Kindes gilt § 1617c Abs. 1 entsprechend..--Cyve (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you, Cyve, (Weil Ich spreche auch deutsch) but that's original research. Original research isn't allowed on wikipedia.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not research. It's logic+law: mother+father=child; child+law=child's name.--Cyve (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if you look at User:BoboMeowCat's talk page, you can see that we're gonna be pragmatic and I think it's probably fair to include the Eszett in that parenthetical. But in the future, you should realize that, if at any point, you're making logical equations combining any sources to form a new concept or conclusion, it's original research..--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

See, I think you could make a pretty good case that for facts about names, primary sources are reliable. The lawsuit is a legal document, and there is legal compulsion related to it for the lawyers to list Paul's birth name. So in this case, I think that primary source would count as a RS. See WP:RS:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

We're not synthesizing anything by using the name listed in that footnote, we're not doing any Original Research, we're literally using one fact about the guy's name. His parents determined what his given name is, I think a lawsuit from their lawyer about their son is probably fair game.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) German name law is not relevant here. What is relevant is how English-language reliable sources spell Nungesser's name. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add the nicknames? "Matress Girl" (media) and "Jean-Paul" (facebook). Media and facebook are booth realiable secondary sorces. /irony off --134.155.36.48 (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, they're not. In this case, you might be right about Paul Jonathan, because of the primary source, but normally Bobowmeowcat would be right. The WP:RSes are just relying on faulty info. Don't be mean about it, WP is not about winning.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I agree that the lawsuit is a reliable source for Nungesser's full name. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

thumbs up I think anon got that part right, but the Eszett thing is definitely wrong. Not even their own lawsuit uses an Eszett.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

For pragmatism's sake, though, I think at least BoboMeowCat and I are gonna let the Eszett stand in that parenthetical. I don't think it's hurting anything, and it encourages people to learn about german naming culture. Why not, I guess. I bet you could even find WP:RSes in german that include the Eszett in Paul's name. That would have been the much more policy-adherent route, but oh well. I'm too lazy to dig through german newspapers published about what this kid did in Swaziland :P --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that course of action. The source lists Paul's name as "Nungesser", and we should copy that spelling. I suggest the wording "Paul Jonathan Nungesser (born in 1991 in Berlin)". Listing his name as "Paul Jonathan Nungeßer" is original research, as has been pointed out on BoboMeowCat's talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to research, you only have to think: father+mother=child; child's name = mother's name (de:Namensrecht (Deutschland).--Cyve (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:Original research – it doesn't always refer to research, strictly speaking. The source says "Paul Jonathan Nungesser", so we should say "Paul Jonathan Nungesser". As far as I know, not a single source has been found that says "Paul Jonathan Nungeßer". (If such a source exists, of course, please point it out.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

But the mother's name is cited right. He can't have two different surnames. Where is the logic?--Cyve (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my argument—"Paul Jonathan Nungesser" is used by a reliable source; "Paul Jonathan Nungeßer" is not. German-language citations of his mother's name are not relevant. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, see German newspaper reports about Emma's lie: "Seit September 2014 trägt die Kunststudentin Emma Sulkowicz eine Matratze mit sich, sobald sie auf dem Campus der Columbia University in New York unterwegs ist. Sie sagt, auf so einer Matratze sei sie von ihrem deutschen Kommilitonen Paul Nungeßer vergewaltigt worden. Der Fall macht seitdem weltweit Schlagzeilen." (Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin, Heft 5/2015, [2]) From one of the most reliable German newspapers.--Cyve (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for providing that source. I have rearranged the material in the sentence slightly, and am now satisfied with it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Balance, neutrality, point-of-view

The article has an overweight of statements from the point of view of artists/art critics and feminists ("Furthering the activist cause"). It's "Emma-focused" and limited to the "US-view". As only negative opinions there are Paul, his lawyer and one New York Post article. It misses the view of neutral jurists/law scholars, representatives of the men's rights movement, as well as relations to the general discussion about false rape allegations at universities in the US and the foreign warnings to men to take up studies in the US and also the public European or German view to the case.--88.70.11.79 (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually think the section is pretty balanced. The article is about the artwork, not the lawsuit, so it makes sense to focus on the opinions of art critics rather than legal scholars and so forth. It is also not a problem that the article focuses on the United States—after all, its subject is in the United States. As for the charge of being "Emma-focused"—well, Emma Sulkowicz is the artist. It's very reasonable for the article to focus on her more than on anyone else. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe some would think, to call it "art" is point of view. Some would prefer "harassment" or "bullying". Different opinions should be mentioned.--88.70.11.79 (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources covering this case from the POV jurists/law scholars, please add. I disagree with the tag, as the article currently contains criticism from multiple reliable source commentators, I really hope you are not suggesting referencing men's rights blogs. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not blogs but maybe associations like the MRO (Men's Rights Organization) or the NCFM (National Coalition for Men).--88.70.11.79 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If their opinions on the case are covered in WP:RS that could work, but we can't just use their websites or whatever. The opinions of feminist organizations are also only covered in article if that opinion is covered in reliable source.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Citing of Professor Jon Kessler in section "Praise"

In my opinion ist's highly doubtful to cite Emma Sulkowicz' professor, a suspected complice or accessory, as positive critic in the section "Praise".--88.70.11.79 (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Kessler's involvement obviously shouldn't be in the praise section, probably in the section explaining how Sulkowicz came up with the idea in the first place and should definitely mention his opinion on it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The place where it belongs. He can't be teacher and critic at once. It's also a bit his own "work".--Cyve (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this professor's praise is on the topic, especially with respect to Nungesser alleging this prof aided in his harassment.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

But it's not a third-party-praise like the others. He gave the "recipe" and Emma was the "cook". No wonder, he likes the "meal".--Cyve (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's try not to engage in chatter about "accomplices" and "accessories" that might give the very mistaken impression that the male student is making a criminal accusation. There's also no particular reason not to include the prof's praise for the work — a textual attribution explaining that it was his student (working under his supervision) should be enough to eliminate any misapprehension by readers. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Nungesser a feminist?

Nungesser being a son of a feminist, are there any sources (or mentions in the comlaint) proving that he provided the cause of feminism? Would be a funny turning point in this witch hunt.--89.204.138.22 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Rephrase more, please. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If he supported his mom's fight for feminism, he could be a feminist rapist. Would be something new.--89.204.138.22 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"widely praised by art critics and other analysts"

[emphasis added] This one sent my BS meter into the elevens. Citation or careful explanation of existing article-body support is badly needed. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Just go read the current praise section and see that many notable people and notable art critics praised it. Lot's of blue links in that section.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you assist me in identifying an "other analyst", whatever that means? I.e. someone who isn't an art critic. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Have read entire "Reception" section. BS meter still pegs 11. Assistance requested. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add "other anaylists" but I suppose Hilary Clinton and Senator Gillibrand would qualify.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote "other analysts", and I did have Clinton and Gillibrand in mind, as well as whoever awarded Sulkowicz the Susan B. Anthony and Ms. Wonder awards. Come to think of it, maybe "public figures" or some other phrasing would be better than "other analysts". —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but it ought to be clear we'd have to eliminate the words "widely" and "analysts". I'm taking this out of the lead while we discuss it, because it's not supported. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to replace the word "analysts"—I was just looking for a synonym for "commentators" when I wrote it.

Perhaps "other analysts" could be replaced by "feminists"? Clinton, Gillibrand, the National Organization for Women, and the Feminist Majority Foundation all identify as feminist, and other feminists such as Jessica Valenti have spoken positively about Sulkowicz's artwork as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good, would also eliminate my concern about "widely". Done, cheers, please post if you have any concerns with my modifications. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I replaced it with politicians, considering Hilary Clinton and Senator Gilibrand are politicians and are more notable as politicians than as feminists. I'm not even sure if they identify as feminists. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

First, I wrote COMMENDED, not CONDEMNED, so I don't think that removal was apt. Second, Hillary Clinton, and her close political protege and ally Gillibrand, certainly both identify themselves as feminists. Third, saying the work has been "praised by politicians" is an exaggeration (we're only talking about two politicians) and failing to include the "feminist" identifier wrongly implies that this view is widely held outside of feminist circles, which I don't think it is, and which in any event is not substantiated by sources at this point. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You already removed "widely". She's been praised by politicians. Do the sources that talk about these politicians praising the project call them feminist politicians? Anyway Hilary Clinton is notable as a politician...period...and not as a feminist politician...that makes her sound fringe or something.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)