Talk:ContraPoints/Archive 1

Archive 1

XOXO festival?

Is it worth mentioning that Wynn was invited to speak at XOXO (festival) this year? Best I can find for a source are [1], [2], [3]. Thoughts? Umimmak (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't there so I'm not aware of it. Is it notable? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Notable enough for it to have a Wikipedia entry. Umimmak (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

She also went on Chapo [4] --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Your first source is a blog, and the other two are primary. We usually decide what's worth including by waiting to see what reliable secondary sources decide is worth writing about; this helps us exclude trivia and give topics WP:DUE weight. However, this is a pretty reliable secondary source that gives a sentence to saying she was there, which might nudge this past the "just trivia" line. FourViolas (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Categorisation

Docktuh added a couple of categories about labels not mentioned in the prose of the article, which I reverted; Docktuh then reverted back in this edit. The categories in dispute are Category:American socialists, Category:American feminists, Category:American socialists. Docktuh argues "A large amount of her output is related to feminism, and her more recent work has shifted to an explicitly anti-capitalist tone. She's also made anti-fascist content." Well, sure. I'm not disputing this. But it doesn't address my concern: "neither feminism nor socialism are mentioned in the prose of the article." (This applies also to "anti-fascism".) Per WP:CATVER, categories must be verifiable and relevant information should be mentioned in the prose. To include these categories, we need reliable secondary sources that Wynn is a socialist, a feminist and (though this one is more obvious) an anti-fascist; and, if these exist, we should make note of this in the prose of the article as well. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 00:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Bilorv the reference from the The New Yorker classifies her as a "stylish socialist" and later she says "I wasn’t even really a feminist yet" impliying she's a feminist now. Isn't that enough to add the categories? I Agree with the revision by Docktuh. Crash Overclock (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how appropriate they are as sources but in case they're useful, tweets where she describes herself as a socialist and a feminist:

• Wynn, Natalie [@ContraPoints] (12 April 2017). "My leftist comrades on here tend to characterize me as a naive liberal. That's not really true. What I am is a very pessimistic socialist" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
• Wynn, Natalie [@ContraPoints] (3 January 2017). "John Berger's death reminds me of the people who said I was "brainwashed" because his book convinced me to be a feminist" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

I agree that there should be sourced text in the article itself saying she's a socialist and a feminist if the categories are to remain, though, as per CATVER. Umimmak (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The New Yorker source seems to pass for the socialist label. I'm a bit dubious about inferences from the word "yet" and those tweets. Note also that categories must be defining (WP:CATDEF); that is, reliable sources consistently mention these attributes. When it comes to the prose section, we need to give due weight, and singling out these two tweets in order to define what she believes in seems a bit undue. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Would these help? (She’s simultaneously an ardent social justice feminist and a critic of the concept of cultural appropriation.) and She’s a living demonstration of the compatibility of socialist politics with joie-de-vivre, wit, and occasional decadent indulgence. both from the Current Affairs source and The wider left online, energized by a real sense that today’s crises present an opportunity for socialist movements, is also starting to see her as an envoy for the cause; an articulate, attractively cool leftist who’s reaching the digital generation where we live. from The Verge. I think that, while the categories are accurate, it's premature to add them until the article text itself uses the words "socialist" and "feminist". Umimmak (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, these are good; I'd say we can mention this in prose and add the socialist/feminist categories based on this. Thanks for finding the quotes. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 03:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Sure thing; I'll leave that to someone else who has a better sense of narrative flow for this article. And also someone who has more precise thoughts as to the exact phrasing ({"is"/"identifies as"/"has been called"/etc} a socialist and a feminist.) Umimmak (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a sentence about this and rephrased some of the surrounding sentences. I've removed the unsourced "anti-fascist" category. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 03:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I'm a bit hesitant about putting that in the same sentence as Formerly a philosophy graduate student and instructor at Northwestern University, -- it sort of implies some sort of relationship between being at NU and being a socialist and feminist, no? But thanks for incorporating the refs into the article so that the cats are sourced :) Umimmak (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Right, that makes sense. I hadn't considered that. Feel free to shuffle it around somewhere. It would probably fit in the sentence describing the topics of her videos, but then the sentence is too long. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I undid Bilorv's edit which had removed the word "fascist" in the list of the arguments she speaks against in her videos and which had removed the "anti-fascist" categorization. Those have both been restored with sourcing. I firmly believe the word "fascist" should stay in the list because 1) It's clearly in the secondary source 2) clearly present in several of her videos. However, whether dismantling fascist arguments and explaining fascists techniques makes her an American anti-fascist is something I will leave up to those who know more about how the cats are used (how much action/identifying is required before the label is applied?). In other words, I would object to removing the in text bit that I re-added, but would gladly concede on the categorization question if there's consensus.--MattMauler (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for discussing this. I'm satisfied that the source you gave exemplifies that Wynn critiques fascist talking points, so I'm fine with the text, and I think it justifies the category as well. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Genderqueer

@Onetwothreeip: in response to this edit, I'm completely agreed that her being a woman is a fact, but surely that warrants rewording rather than removal. She used to identify as genderqueer, which is relevant to her channel (the body of work she is notable for) – specifically, she produced a video about the label and referenced it in other videos, as a key part of the video. As the subject of gender (including her personal experience) is a key part of her works, leaving out the genderqueer label seems like a substantial omission to make. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that this is complex enough to need a discussion, and I welcome your input even if it doesn't seem like that when I essentially reverted one of your edits. I would think that being transgender was more relevant to the videos than simply being genderqueer, and the more accurate description. My understanding is that they said they were genderqueer prior to "coming out" as transgender. We should essentially reflect how sources describe them, which is largely from their own videos. So I'm not completely against using the word genderqueer in the article, just that it's a lower precedence than transgender. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive attitude. This source talks a bit about her video on genderqueerness, including her identification at the time as genderqueer. What do you think of the following:

Wynn is a trans woman; she began transitioning in July 2017, having previously identified as genderqueer.

— Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: thoughts? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That definitely sounds better, but I would think "transgender" is more appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I'm not sure if we want to put genderqueer on the same level as gender, but that's probably splitting hairs. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

As in, "Wynn is a transgender woman"? Or simply "Wynn is transgender"? Either is fine by me. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Implemented. Please copy edit as you see fit. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, Bilorv, Coffeeandcrumbs: I'm hoping to take this article to GAN in the next couple of weeks. I reached out to Natalie to confirm the proper gender pronouns to use in the article, but I figure I might as well ask you all which you think are most appropriate for the article, too. As is, it seems that the article uses "they/their/them" and "she/her." ceranthor 15:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the article correctly uses "she/her" throughout. The two instances of "their" are referring to "Wynn's videos", not Wynn herself. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using "they" and "their" to refer to someone, even when their gender is known. It doesn't indicate that their gender is ambiguous or absent, it's just a very normal part of the English language and sometimes more appropriate than he, she, him, her. There's no ambiguity about Wynn being a woman. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll assume female pronouns are appropriate. ceranthor 20:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Referred to as Contrapoints

I just wanted to make sure that there is a reason that throughout the article Wynn is referred to as Contrapoints - Contrapoints is a character, right? Anyway, I didn't want to change things too hastily. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not a character, it's just Wynn's internet alias. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This is stated under content:

Katherine Cross, in an August 2018 interview for The Verge, notes a significant difference between Wynn and Contra, the character she portrays in her videos. Contra is blithe, aloof, decadent and disdainful while Wynn can be earnest—and she "cares deeply, almost too much."

Alduin2000 (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It is confusing but this is how I see it. Contra is the name of the main character she plays on many of her videos. ContraPoints is the name of the channel. However, she commonly referred to in RS by the name of her channel. So ContraPoints has become a online alias for Wynn. The sentence you quote (which I wrote) is referring to Contra, the character, and not ContraPoints, which is both an alias for Wynn and the name of her YouTube channel. But I do want to say that I do not watch enough of her videos to know if my reading of these RS is correct.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure too if I'm honest. Either way the article should be consistent - sometimes it refers to her as Contrapoints, others Wynn. Isn't it usually the case that articles use last names to refer to the subjects of the article rather than aliases or pseudonyms? Alduin2000 (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I took phrases like "ContraPoints videos" (N.B. not "ContraPoints’ videos") to refer specifically to the videos on her channel. Leaving open I guess the possibility of Wynn making videos elsewhere with a different focus or aesthetic, and also I guess allowing for the possibility of collaborative works on the channel not solely created by Wynn. Umimmak (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's slightly more nuance here. Wynn portrays many different characters, such as Freya the Fascist or Tiffany Tumbles (TVTropes has a list), but The Verge is pointing out that when she monologues "as herself", it's really a different character to how she is in real life. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 08:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Basically, "Contrapoints" is best seen as a stage name. It's comparable to somebody who hosts a television program as themselves. While they may have differences in their personality in their private life compared to their media presence, they are still the same human person. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Polyamorous/Polysexual

In this article it states that Wynn identified as polyamorous in 'Are Traps Gay?', however she actually only refers to herself as 'poly', which could mean polyamorous or polysexual? In this (now very old) stream, she does say that she is in a non-monogamous relationship but doesn't use the label polyamorous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSSeLZFZr5o

Should the article be edited to reflect this ambiguity or the detail removed altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.207.191 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Removed altogether. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"Reception" section and others

I originally removed the reception heading not because I'm against there being a reception section, but because there's no significant difference between the YouTube section and Reception. Overall though we should remain objective and not assume that the reader is familiar with this genre of YouTube, and we should avoid being unintentionally promotional of the subject, like calling the videos educational and comedic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Describing the videos as "educational" and "comedic" is not promotional. More importantly, if the channel has been reviewed/profiled positively in reliable sources, there is no reason not to include these in a "Reception" section, which should be different from the YouTube section. The point of the section is not to describe her career or the content of the videos, but to summarize how they have been evaluated (praised, criticized, cited, etc.) by secondary sources. --MattMauler (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit because the page should reflect the stable version while we hash out the consensus here. I do see some evaluative stuff in the YouTube section that should either be moved to Reception or deleted entirely. So I am open to doing that, and I will do that within the next 24 hours if there is no objection.
Your edit removed material from at least three different sources from the reception section. Is this aimed at reducing the overall wordcount? Trying to avoid sounding promotional? What is the rationale? (edit summary said "too reliant on reviews" when a reception section should be exactly that, right?)--MattMauler (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

They're not objectively educational or comedic though, they are simply videos that many people regard as being informative or funny to them. At the very least we should recognise that these are positive and promotional terms, and there are many terms that we could use to describe both the person and the YouTube channel. This article shouldn't be simply a profile.

It's not an issue that positive coverage is contained in "Reception", which shouldn't simply be a repository for reviews. That section is often describing the channel using reviews, and not simply describing the opinions of critics and the audience as is intended. The descriptive information belongs in the same section that we have for describing the channel itself.

Yes, I did remove material from three sources. That information did not substantively describe how ContraPoints is received, except the views of the particular person writing that review. There is definitely an issue of being inadvertently promotional as well. There's certainly no word count issue or anything like that.

We can use the most notable reviews to illustrate, but mostly it should be about describing how the audience and the critical media rate these videos. Like with articles about films, there might be one or two specific reviews talked about, but what's more useful are sales figures and data from places like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean by what's more useful are sales figures and data from places like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. This isn't true in articles about films and it's certainly not true in articles about YouTube videos. Film articles include, separate to sales and viewing figure, specifically marked critical reception sections, and over reliance on Metacritic/RT is an issue: articles should always include representative reviews as professional consensus is more nuanced than a single number.

As for ContraPoints, critical reviews are the secondary sources that make the subject notable. I don't object to merging the sections, though I'm not sure it makes sense for such a short article with few other major sections, but I'm again unclear on what That information did not substantively describe how ContraPoints is received, except the views of the particular person writing that review is supposed to mean. That's all any review is. No critic's review is a summary of more than just their own opinion, but as a professional, their opinion is somewhat of an authority in the subject area and therefore significant to include. Due weight doesn't mean excluding positive reception if this happens to be critical consensus, or contrasting positive reviews with negative ones—see WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 06:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I was using that as an example of films, not YouTube videos. The point I'm making is that we should describe the reception of the material broadly, and not simply rely on examples. I already said we should include individual reviews as well, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with there. I'm not saying we need to find something that amalgamates reviews, although that would be helpful which is why I brought up Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes since I hope those are things others are familiar with, but this article should be looking at reception entirely. There may very well be no source that combines the consensus of reviews, but that's precisely what we're here to do. If you're bringing up the notability of these reviews, I should also point out that many of these are not particularly by notable people.

I'm honestly left a bit confused at your reply. I didn't say anything about contrasting positive reviews with negative ones, and I did say we should include individual reviews. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that "educational" should be removed - I personally really like her channel but she does describe her own content as "propaganda". The whole YouTube section goes into how her YouTube channel was made to combat arguments from right wing YT and I don't think we even have any sources that call her content educational. I don't think there is a problem with the reception section though - films, albums etc. all have critical reception sections which include summaries of multiple individual reviews (maybe the section can be structured better such that recurring points are grouped together). Alduin2000 (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"Educational" can be removed, I suppose. I still would not call it promotional, but I agree now that it might not be accurate. I was the one who added that wording almost a year ago, and I was thinking of videos like "What Is Gender?" "What Is Race?", which are more educational, and I saw the term as merely descriptive. You are correct that secondary sources do not describe the channel this way.--MattMauler (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of the "Reception" section: The cuts I reverted yesterday were pretty deep (and the Reception section title was relocated without explanation, making the distinction between the two sections even fuzzier). However, I do understand making slight changes: making it less quotation-heavy, perhaps de-emphasizing less important publications relative to more "important"/widely read ones such as The New Yorker, The Atlantic, etc. That said, we can and should continue to include material from reviews (either quoted or paraphrased) as examples, even if these secondaries don't explicitly summarize a broader critical consensus. Inclusion of only secondaries summarizing what other critics are saying has never been the standard for films or other media.--MattMauler (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: If you're OK with including individual reviews still, where you differ from others here perhaps would be a matter of degree (? correct me if I'm wrong) and a matter of what constitutes a "notable" review. When I said "de-emphasize" in my previous comment, I mainly meant reduction of quoted text by certain reviewers rather than removal entirely FWIW, so that's where it seems we differ.
I think the section needs to change very little, but I like Alduin2000's idea of grouping recurring points together (For example, the reference to VICE News could be reduced to a footnote and grouped with others that describe her channel as effectively "de-radicalizing" some of her right-leaning viewers; VanDerWerff, already very short, could maybe get this same treatment).--MattMauler (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

See also

Why is Hbomberguy in "see also"? --SVTCobra (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I am moving it. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wynn's views on arguments as being persuasive

I realised that all the mention of Wynn's views that arguments should be persuasive as well as logical have been removed. I'm not sure when it was removed so I don't know what the reasoning was (or if it was removed unintentionally whilst removing other content). The content I'm referring to was the parts about Wynn thinking sometimes leftist arguments are logically sound but unpersuasive, her calling politics "aesthetic" in nature, needing to empathise with people to persuade them etc. These views seem important in outlining exactly what Wynn does and what she's trying to achieve with her YouTube channel and they were well sourced. Thanks for any responses. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It was removed at this diff for those interested. Looks like the material mentioned is from the Atlantic article and the Vice UK article. I would be in favor of its inclusion--MattMauler (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Self-identification as socialist

The article suggests that she considers herself a socialist, but none of the three linked sources (at least from what I saw, maybe I missed it), give any claim of her self-identifying as a socialist (and even their use of the term to describe her is fairly indirect). I've watched all her videos and haven't noted any particular defenses of socialism nor her referring to herself as one. In fact, the ambiguity of her political ideology is a recurrent theme in discussions about her. Does anybody have any better sources for this claim? In the meantime I will change it to omit the self-identification aspect of the claim. Voyaging^talk 13:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above, here, including discussion of the sources. The tweet they reference in which she self-identifies no longer exists, so perhaps removing the self-identification makes sense. The new wording ("Been referred to as...") sounds like it's casting too much doubt on it IMO; RS simply call her socialist. Others care to weigh in?--MattMauler (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The key here is that the original text explicitly says she personally identifies as one, rather than is described as one by third parties. I think that's an important distinction and for the article to say she self-identifies as such without reliable sources indicating that is true, I think is unwise as it is a claim not made by the sources. And yes the tweet being removed I think is relevant as well. It both eliminates it as a source (although an archived link could perhaps be provided if available), but also suggests she may in some way no longer feel the tweet accurately describes her (though there are of course other reasons for her deleting the tweet). How about "been described as..."? Voyaging^talk 12:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should no longer say that she self-identifies as one. "Been described as" would be OK, but it makes the reader wonder "by whom?", and casts doubt as I said. Reliable sources simply call her a socialist, so I still think "is a socialist" would be fine unless/until there is an intentional rejection by her (or by other RS). I understand, however, that her (past) self-identification might be all that the sources were based on anyway, so if we don't have that ... Well, I understand your point of view is what I'm saying. The article can stay like it is now (or change to "been described as").
I do think it would make sense to add a phrase about her avoidance of labels (which she has acknowledged, let others do the labeling, etc.) if that info can be found in an interview or other reliable source, then following that with "been described as a socialist." I don't have the sources at my finger tips, though, so it might be a few days. How does that sound to you, though?--MattMauler (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. I'll keep my eyes peeled for any references. Thanks.

Side note, as for the sources, the only one that actually calls her a socialist is The New Yorker article. I'm not sure if the other two sources qualify, as they vaguely mention it in passing that her work is relevant to the socialist community, not that she herself is one. I won't make any changes yet, but I think it may be worth only including The New Yorker article as a citation. And this also allows us to write it in a more explicit way, e.g. "The New Worker has described Wynn as a socialist," or something along those lines, as you suggested to avoid a "by whom?" issue. There's probably a better way to word it, though. Just a thought. Voyaging^talk 05:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't need to list things that Wynn considers herself to be, so I've removed reference to identifying as socialist among other things. We should leave it to what reliable sources authoritatively state, otherwise we're only reporting on what Wynn happens to say at one particular time which is unlikely to be relevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The categorization discussion here, to which I've already referred, clearly cites and quotes reliable sources for the political leanings we're discussing here. The self-identification language doesn't make sense, you're right, but it's also unnecessary, because we DO have reliable independent sources that call her these things. We can discuss relevance, sure, but we shouldn't pretend these descriptions only hang on how she self-identifies.--MattMauler (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I would think that for a biographical article we would include things more firmly defined than "leanings". It's certainly too tenuous to describe everything that Wynn has identified herself as, but it would also be very tenuous to do the same for what reliable sources identify her as. Just like we shouldn't rely on her own words for these details, we shouldn't rely on sources that simply repeat that, especially when they are used as part of a narrative style of article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"Leanings" is my word, not theirs. Again, I agree with you regarding self-identification, but I don't know what you mean by "It would also be very tenuous to do the same for what reliable sources identify her as." What is the alternative to relying on the characterization of her views in reliable sources? RS define her clearly (at least as "socialist" and "feminist"), and I think that's good enough.
This is all moot if we decide here that the info is not relevant or not important enough, and if that's the consensus, that's fine. I could go either way, and I don't think we would lose too much leaving it out, particularly because the political perspective of her content is made very clear elsewhere in the article.--MattMauler (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair. I'd prefer that it explicitly mentions the source of the claim calling her a socialist, rather than just "is a socialist", but I'm not an expert in Wikipedia style guidelines so I'll defer if that would be a a violation. Voyaging^talk 16:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Birth name should be added

Any time a person's birth name is not mentioned in a biographical article I think it's a mistake.This person's was deleted citing a policy that original names of the transgendered should only be included if the person was notable under the original name...but the article says that the Contrapoints channel started in 2016 and the operator started transition in 2017. So,some mention of "Natalie Wynn" having spent 29 years as NAME REDACTED is necessary.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope. She was not notable under the name that I have had to remove above, or any other previous name. We only mention the birthname/deadname of trans people when they were notable under that previous name and it is already covered by reliable sources. We do not out people who's birthnames are not legitimately in the public domain. Wynn only became notable after starting Contrapoints and he birthname was never covered in any of the RS references. Please do not attempt to use it again. It is likely to be reverted as original research (if done in mistaken good faith) or as vandalism/doxxing/harassment (if done in bad faith). --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The specific policy here is MOS:CHANGEDNAME which gives examples of correct and incorrect circumstances to use birthnames. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed Wynn was neither notable under her deadname nor did she ever use it on her channel. There are no reliable sources that use it, so inclusion would violate WP:V, WP:BLP etc. — Bilorv (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The Contrapoints channel was started in 2016 and already had a following when its operator "transitioned" in 2017.Contriving to erase people's pasts is horrifically bad practice in writing their biographies...a source that fails to include the birth name ought to be regarded as NOT "reliable" for that reason!Please do not indulge in "redaction" again.12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

We have explained the policy and you have failed to demonstrate a single WP:RS source that shows her birthname to be notable. Instead you argue what you think "should" be taking no notice of the policy at all. Please either show sources that meet WP:RS and WP:N or give it up.

Oh, and if you have a problem with me being kind enough to redact your misdeeds instead of reporting you for potential harassment and doxxing then please feel free to report me. That would rebound on you like a WP:BOOMERANG and you would have nobody to blame but yourself. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I am done with commenting on this article.I don't agree with any policy that even permits the hiding of a birth name unless there are extreme issues like Witsec aliases becoming notable...the article on Anne Perry doesn't hide the name under which she committed a murder in her youth, [accusation of crime redacted] ...if a person meets WP:GNG then so does his/her birthname.Either way...done here. 12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously most YouTubers are not notable and this was the case for Wynn pre-transition. There are no reliable sources that mention Wynn's birthname. If you don't agree with the policy WP:V then you are not welcome anywhere on this website. — Bilorv (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019

Change # of subscribers to 774,000 for accuracy. Crawfish10 (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done, along with the |stats_update= field. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Including references to academic attention in Reception?

There is lately some scholarly attention developing around Wynn and ContraPoints. I would expect much more will follow, so perhaps it would be worth waiting until there’s a larger body of work before starting to compile it. However, if it’s worth beginning a final paragraph in Reception about academic responses, it could read something like:

"Wynn has been the subject of some academic study, which has approached her work in relation to transgender cultural representation [Ref 1], political speech on YouTube [Ref 2], and as an exemplar of ‘YouTube art’ [Ref 3]."

References: [Ref 1] Pearce, Ruth, Igi Moon, Kat Gupta & Deborah Lynn Steinberg (eds) The Emergence of Trans: Cultures, Politics and Everyday Lives, New York: Routledge, 2019, p6. Link here. [Ref 2] Pineda, Sasha, “Ill-Conceived Notions of Digital Humans: An inquiry of speech habits in neopolitical YouTube”, MA dissertation in Digital Humanities, University College Cork, 2019. Link here. [Ref 3] MacDowell, James (The Lesser Feat) “Notes on YouTube Art (Part 1): A YouTube Artworld?”, 2019. Link here.

If it seems too early, this could simply serve as a starting point for when it seems the right time to begin an academic section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.200.255 (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The third source, a YouTube video, is not a reliable source. The second appears to be an MA thesis, which I believe we usually don't use in Wikipedia (only PhD theses or published papers). The first source looks good and I don't see a huge deal of content about Wynn, but we could definitely include any relevant information under "Reception" or "YouTube career". — Bilorv (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I've read the MA thesis, it seems to me as being dishonest at best. Natalie, even though she has a strong opinion, is not really what I'd called far left, but she is sitting right next to a white supremacist, as if it was opposites ends of the spectrum. This paper is highly political,and of really low quality (I encourage everyone to read it, especially if you have been in a PhD jury, you will see the problems immediate). If we let it be used as proof of academic consideration, we are weakening everything that could be said subsenquently about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.243.221.121 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Controversies section

I believe that there should be a section dedicated to controversies that Wynn has been embroiled in, including the recent Twitter controversy and the Buck Angel oneRooinMahmood07 (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@RooinMahmood07: Per WP:CRITS, controversy sections are normally to be avoided because they encourage people to report every negative thing associated with a topic, rather than giving due weight to its most important aspects. For the content you describe, it would fit under "YouTube career" or "Reception", but we need reliable secondary sources describing the issue in detail in order for it to be significant enough to mention in Wikipedia. Can you find such sources? — Bilorv (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Much like the "enbyphobia controversy". This "controversy" was a sordid mixture of about 20% genuine misunderstandings and about 80% deliberate bad faith Twitter drama/harassment. It was not covered by Reliable Sources because stupid Twitter drama rarely is. Also the fact that everybody who was putting the boot in wanted to frame this as being about Wynn, and not about Angel at all, gives a strong hint as to what the real motivation was. So I agree with Bilorv. No "controversy" section. No over-coverage of the Twitter drama(s). If there is good RS for it then it can have proportionate coverage, which is to say a maximum of one sentence per incident. If not, nothing. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, and I apologise if this is a little off topic but I think it is instructive, I did a bit of digging (admittedly not in any great depth) when this first kicked off. Given that the underlying assumption of the drama was that Angel was such a notoriously awful person that everybody knew he was toxic and that Wynn must have been using him deliberately in that capacity, I wondered why his alleged misdeeds were not reflected in his Wikipedia article. I also wondered why his involvement in the outing incident was not mentioned in the article about his alleged victim (who there is no need to drag into this). So I did a quick search for anything RS that could be used to fill these apparent gaps in those articles. It seems that he is nowhere near as notorious as is claimed. In fact, I was not able to find good RS coverage saying what his actual involvement in the outing incident was. Later, I saw a Reddit post by Theryn in which she took responsibility for including Angel and said that neither Wynn or herself were aware of the issue when they included him. Given that I found nothing substantial either, I find this perfectly plausible. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I basically second DanielRigal's opinion of the Buck Angel controversy with the caveat that most of it originated from Angel's tweets. Buck Angel's tweets, while normally not a reliable source, can be used to source Angel's own opinion about a topic (but not to support a characterization of the tweets, such as that they are NBphobic; for that we'd want some sort of reliable third party opinion, like an opinion column in a newspaper or something, and it'd have to be attributed).

Also, there are some reliable sources that have covered the most recent controversies, especially the parts where Natalie left Twitter because of them. For example, there's a bit about her leaving Twitter in the Baltimore Sun. Loki (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"Controversies"

MatthewHoobin added a section about, for lack of a better phrase, Wynn's recent Twitter cancelings. I think some content on this is needed, but IMO two paragraphs is undue weight given the three secondary sources, and the section title "Controversies" is definitely inappropriate per WP:CSECTION. I'm not convinced of the reliability of the Pride source, which is an opinion piece by a website that looks quite clickbaity and not exactly like serious investigative journalism. Then there's Newsweek, which I was surprised to find in yellow at WP:RSP, indicating that we should evaluate reliability on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the article heavily relies on tweets, though there is some quoting of a Daily Dot journalist. Perhaps we can use this source, but we must be very careful what we use it for. Finally, a Guardian article is definitely a reliable source and needed in the article.

Overall, I can see this adding up to two or three sentences of content, mostly based on The Guardian but possibly citing Newsweek as well. This makes a paragraph to go under "Reception", but with the "Controversies" label removed. Are there any more relevant sources, or any other factors to take into consideration? — Bilorv (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I concede that two paragraphs about Wynn's "cancelings" may fall under undue weight, but I wrote at that length in order to explain the situations therein with clear and fair language. Admittedly, trimming may be appropriate. Per WP:CSECTION, I acknowledge that the section title "Controversies" may be inappropriate, but I am unsure about how to go about amending that. Re-titling the section to, say, "Critiques" may be confusing to readers, as Wynn's videos often focus on her critiques of certain concepts or trends. Perhaps a different word can be used, or perhaps the information about the cancelings can be integrated into the Reception section without using a subsection.

As far as Pride.com goes, I think its reliability should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Although it is said to prominently feature user-submitted content, it does have an editorial director, and it does feature content by established figures. The article in question was written by Jessie Earl, who has also written for The Advocate. The only other relevant source I can find regarding Wynn's cancelings is this article published by Reason. –Matthew - (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the two large paragraphs are very badly excessive. I think that talking about her withdrawing from Twitter without mentioning the harassment that caused it is outright perverse. I think that saying "regarding her discomfort with expressing pronouns" is so factually inaccurate that it is unacceptably misleading, almost teetering on the brink of defamation. She expressed discomfort with "pronoun circles", in certain specific contexts, not the pronouns themselves. She previously made a whole video and many statements supporting people using whatever pronouns that they think are appropriate to themselves. I have removed that fragment as an urgently necessary factual change.

I'd like to see this coverage cut down to about half the current size and worded in a much more neutral way. I'd favour removing it completely pending a more neutral draft here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the speedy reply! I take your point about Pride. I've revamped the content, removing the header and adding the Reason source. I think it's fine to have them as multiple paragraphs under "Reception" as they are about different events. On the same note, with the additional Reason source and now I accept that we can include Pride, I think two paragraphs is appropriate weight for four sources and a couple of different events. I'd find it tough to shorten the content any further, so I understand why you wrote it at that length. It still looks like The Guardian is the most high-quality source, so I aimed to include more content from that source than the others. Please edit away if you feel like the description is unfair to any particular perspective or if there are any changes you'd like to make. It is hard to keep things short but I think we need to stick to the absolute bare minimum number of words when it comes to describing Wynn's tweets or Angel's views without being inaccurate. — Bilorv (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: I didn't see your edits before making mine—what do you think of the current content? We shouldn't cite her videos or statements directly, instead deferring to secondary source commentary. The new version of the content mentions "widespread harassment" following Angel's inclusion in "Opulence" and it describes Wynn's tweets as expressing feelings of awkwardness when asked in some contexts to describe her preferred gender pronouns. What issues with neutrality, if any, remain? — Bilorv (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that is a big improvement and that it is basically OK now. The only thing that still seems weird is that we mention her deactivating Twitter for a week (a minor thing) but not that she later left it completely (a more major thing). I think we should either mention both or neither but I'm not sure which. (BTW, I wasn't suggesting citing her videos directly in the article. I was just linking the Pronouns video here to show the incorrectness of the characterisation which I removed.) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, good point on leaving Twitter. Only the Reason source was written after that and it doesn't mention it. I've cited her tweet itself for the time being, because I'm personally leaning on the side of including both. I found it odd how little some of the sources mentioned Twitter but there you have it. — Bilorv (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: I apologize for some of the phrasing I used. I had some trouble with trying to word the sentences in a clear way, and evidently, I failed somewhat. "Pronoun circles" is a fitting term in this context that I hadn't considered, and the phrasing present in the article as of my writing this ("...feelings of awkwardness when asked in some contexts to describe her preferred gender pronouns") is, I think, even better. –Matthew - (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia not neutral in choosing preferred pronouns of transvestites?

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be neutral in these things? Or representing the consensus opinion? Then why is it calling a male transvestite "she"? Am I missing something?--Adûnâi (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see MOS:GENDERID. (Although it should be sufficient to say that Wynn is not a “male transvestite”.) Umimmak (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Even if MOS:GENDERID didn't exist, every reliable source uses "she". Additionally, Wikipedia reflects scientific and academic consensus in regards to discussion of transgender people. "Neutrality" is not the same as pandering to bigots. Note also that "transvestite" is an outdated term for "transgender", now referring to a different group of people entirely. It is a slur in this context. — Bilorv (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia supports transgender rights as it should. Using the term “he” is disparaging. There is no neutrality here, being neutral does not mean attacking someone. And a ‘transvestite’ refers to someone who dresses up as a member of the opposite sex. Wynn is transgender, meaning she identifies as a woman. RooinMahmood07 (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The Hill

Doug Weller, the work referred to by AlejandroMS in this edit is this one. Mentioning praise made by someone interviewing a person is probably not appropriate, but perhaps the source is useful for something else. — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox link to YouTube channel is broken

And I don't know how to fix it. Halp! Hammerfrog (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It works for me! BrightVamp (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

How to handle otherwise potentially valid references that reveal the subject's deadname?

How do we all feel about this diff?

I'm not accusing the author of anything here. I don't know their intentions and an addition of this type would not be problematic on most other articles. The problem is that, whether it was the intention or not, the reference material introduced reveals Wynn's deadname. If we are happy that the text is sufficiently referenced without it then I would recommend removing it. Is everybody happy with that? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have removed it pending discussion here. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we have a good amount of information on Wynn's education already. If secondary sources haven't covered the specific details then I'm not convinced that it isn't original research to connect these primary sources to Wynn (what if there were two people with the same name?), particularly the source where the only connection to Wynn is via a deadname not mentioned in secondary sources. — Bilorv (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with using such a source. There's also no particular issue with using Wynn's previous name either, as long as we're not implying that their previous name (or identity) is in some way more genuine than who they are currently. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Wynn was not notable under her previous name, so there would be a problem including the name itself in the article.--MattMauler (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Bilorv here. As an aside, this reminds me of when someone added some sources to the Emily Gorcenski article to support some text about her education, even though they were primary sources and also never mentioned her, and there no sources were provided that identified any of the people who were mentioned as being the same person as Emily. (A even more egregious case was when a Flickr photograph of Marsha P Johnson's birth certificate, which obviously did not have the name Marsha P Johnson on it, was cited as a reference for the claim that something else was her birth name, as if somehow a random birth certificate was in and of itself proof that it was hers...) -sche (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you for the discussion. I agree we should inspect the edit carefully. As Socrates said "hypothesis elimination" is the way to find truth in the beliefs. On on side you have WP:BLPBALANCE, on the other hand you have WP:AB.

• From WP:BLPBALANCE perspective revealing someone previous name can damage someone reputation. However does it not shows how someone in reality developed to become what the person becomes? Does it not increases the reputation?
  
• From WP:AB perspective hiding information from what a person is can be against WP:PROPORTION, however does hiding information not shows what kind of character somebody is? Does it not shows the original author had an intention to not reveal the information implicit?
• In relation to the sources all these sources are not verifiable based upon the information already available in the article such as studying at Georgetown University and Northwestern University is new. Also being an alumina is new. However, you can assume the person who apply for the master program at Northwestern University is somebody else, but does this undermines the verifiable given with the context this article already gave or do these sources closely resemble a Confirmation bias or will dismissing these source reveal an Selection bias?

Enjoy your life --MasterJin-Chan (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Content suppressed. See WP:DEADNAME. I see zero reason to do any digging and try to push the issue. Primefac (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That policy relates to using the name in the lead, not elsewhere in the article. There needn't be any sensitivity around mentioning Wynn's previous name if we have a reliable source stating it, just as we mention many other biographical details of her. This would be completely compatible with policies on biographies, especially since it is already well known that Wynn is transgender. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Left twitter

Should the article mention that she has left Twitter after multiple waves of abuse and claims of being enbyphobic? Hammerfrog (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I doubt it. If there are solid Reliable Sources covering this then maybe we could have a single sentence about it but this was mostly just a heap of vindictive harassment and stupid Twitter drama that she decided (in my view wisely) to just walk away from. I'm not aware of any good sources for this. There may be quite a lot of passing mentions in screeds about "cancel culture" but most of those will be non-RS and/or deeply non-neutral.

If we do decide to cover it at all, we should not mention any of the specific spurious claims of enbyphobia, anti-Semitism, biting the heads off kittens, blah blah blah, because those could be interpreted in a "no smoke without fire" way by our readers unless we devote quite a lot of space to demonstrating their utter baselessness, which would be both disproportionate coverage, impossible to source validly and also non-neutral.

I have put a note on the link to her Twitter saying that it is no longer active. Anybody clicking on it will see her last/pinned Tweet in which she explained why. I think that is probably sufficient. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the account is active again, but for "promotional purposes only". Lindsay Ellis seems to have taken the account over. You can see the tweet where this was announced here. — Delvethedragon (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The latest tweets are frequent and seem like a personal twitter account suggesting the "leaving twitter" phase is over and should be rephrased. e.g. 31 February 2020 "It’s hard to get anything done when you know that democracy is likely to collapse in T minus three months" Chromosundrift (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Self-identified Political labels

Hey all, just wanted to make a statement on why I edited the line that said Wynn is "a feminist and a socialist." I know there's been discussion on what she calls herself, politically, since our existing sources point to what others call her, but there are in fact two instances in which she's referred to herself by a label. She said "Democratic Socialist" comes "pretty close to the views that I actually hold" during an AMA for Politics Discord in May 2018 (39:15), and called herself a "Bernie Sanders social democrat" on a stream with YouTuber Vaush on October 2020 (31:47). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopard of the Snows (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Those goddamn socdems. Anyway, it would be helpful to link to the timestamp which she said it, from the two-hour VOD. There was a lot of other stuff from that live Q&A that would be good citations for, but I don't think either of us would want to watch through the whole thing again ha. SWinxy (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Request to change name of page from Contrapoints to Natalie Wynn

This page is listed as the biography of a living person. Contrapoints is a fictional character and Natalie Wynn is a living person. The name of the page should be changed. Daxri (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Contrapoints is the title because it's the name of the channel. Natalie is not a notable person apart from the channel, so that is why it is titled this way. If she starts other ventures or does other noteworthy things, then she herself would perhaps warrant an article. As to why it's considered a BLP, I assume it's because other articles on YouTubers are treated similarly (Markiplier, PewDiePie, etc.) and because it contains info about her background in grad school and her transition (both of which are relevant to her videos/channel).--MattMauler (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That's right. Also, I don't think that there was ever really a fictional character called Contrapoints. It is just that people called her that, or sometimes just Contra, back when it wasn't clear what her actual name was and it sort of stuck. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Zinnia Jones

Tangential but, why is there no wiki page on Zinnia Jones? i ended up here just based on looking for other internet personalities who are equally or less notable. What's the criteria? was there ever a Zinnia Jones page? if it's been deleted, is it gone forever, or recoverable somehow? Irtapil (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Irtapil! See WP:NBIO. If the page had been deleted then you could see this by clicking on the redlink (see This nonexistent article for an example of what it might show if it had a deletion log, though note that page is also salted so you can't recreate it, which is why the edit box doesn't appear at the bottom). Deleted pages can be recovered by admins if later coverage means the topic may become notable. Most often the reason a page doesn't exist is simply "no-one has written it". That doesn't mean it should or shouldn't exist. If you can find multiple significant reliable secondary sources about Jones then start a draft or an article. Notice that followers, subscribers, likes and dislikes are irrelevant to notability. — Bilorv (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As an addendum to what Bilorv wrote, what we mean by "significant reliable secondary sources" for a biography of an internet personality are usually mainstream news articles. One of the reasons there's an article for Contrapoints is that she's interviewed by mainstream news organizations fairly regularly. Loki (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv and LokiTheLiar: There's a least one huge story that seems to turn up about a million hits, plus smaller others. Zinnia was a in communication with Chelsea Manning before she was on trial, and ended up involved in the trial as a Witness, though i think usually with her legal name Lauren McNamara, but many of them referred to her videos, they'd connected newscaster Manning was fan. She's also been on YouTube for as long as the likes of the VlogBrothers. It would be very weird if it never existed. But i can't find it under either. If it got merged into the Chelsea Manning page or another, would the deletion log not show? Irtapil (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If the coverage is mainly about Manning rather than Zinnia then it could be dubious to count it towards Zinnia's notability. Being on YouTube for a long time has no relevance. If the page was merged then Zinnia Jones would still exist as a redirect page (edit history intact). If you think she's notable then present some of the best-quality sources—maybe we can create an article but quick searches are not giving me enough concrete substance to be sure enough of notability to begin writing a page. — Bilorv (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

outdated?

> Wynn provides counterarguments to right-wing political argumentation,

is this really the primary focus of her content anymore? this is definetally where the channel name originates but the channel is more general.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkaaap (talk • contribs)

We should speak about a subject in a way that reflects its whole existence, not just where it is right now, so that description is still a valid description of the channel, just not a complete one. She does still make that sort of content to some extent. The recent "Justice" video fits in that mould. So, I think we should keep that part of the description but expand it to include the other content as well. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is a very rough suggestion of what we could say:

"Wynn's videos cover political and social issues, often providing counterarguments to right-wing political argumentation. Many of her videos are structured as debates between various characters played by herself."

Is that any good? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll put that in. It isn't meant to be the last word on the subject. If anybody has any further improvements then please go ahead. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Episodes table??

I think a table listing all episodes currently up on her channel, and when they were all posted, would be useful information, obviously excluding all videos pre-transition. Redandvidya (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that. Actors often have a filmography section, so why not internet actors? Loki (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I've thought about this in the past but decided against making one and I think it would be a bad idea. Actors' filmographies are about works produced by production companies that air (inter-)nationally on a television channel. Even then not everything is counted (e.g. most talk show appearances) and we certainly wouldn't include their personal YouTube channel. So a "filmography" of the type described is definitely not appropriate. While there's some confusion about whether this article is for the person or the channel, there'd be a stronger case for an "episode list", but a list of YouTube videos is a lot of primary source content that seems out of place. We don't do this for most other YouTubers, so far as I can see—for good reason, as a YouTuber could easily have 200 or even 2000 videos varying wildly in length, quality and structure.

Look at the secondary sources in the article. Most of them aren't about specific analysis of ContraPoints videos (like how we would expect mostly traditional reviews for a notable television or web series), but about the person or the content in general, and there's not episode-by-episode breakdowns of each video from any source. This is what differs from articles where we do have episode tables. — Bilorv (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this objection has much weight. For the length objection, we have lists of episodes for ~1000 episode TV shows. I think the rest of this boils down to an old-media bias. I don't see any difference between episodes of Contrapoints and episodes of a conventional TV show, except that Contrapoints is on YouTube. I don't think the fact that Contrapoints is made primarily by one person makes a difference, and I think other YouTubers not having filmographies is a bad standard, and a contradiction of the usual standard that shows have episode lists and actors have filmographies. And it's not even like that's a universal standard: we have a list of over 100 episodes each for Critical Role (campaign one) and Critical Role (campaign two). Loki (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's say there is an "old-media bias" in reliable sources. Great. Wikipedia needs to reflect that bias. It's not our place to right great wrongs. You point to Case Closed but most 1000-episode shows wouldn't get episode-by-episode breakdowns (e.g. The Jeremy Kyle Show)—I take it that Case Closed is so overwhelmingly notable that this is acceptable, but as I don't live in Japan it's rather hard for me to know. It could also just be a mistake: from what I've seen, a lot of our anime content violates a lot of policies/guidelines because we don't have the same body of Japanese-speaking experts to clean up inexperienced/very old contributions as we do with English-language programs.

If you want to change the standard in this area then I'd point you to WikiProject Television as a possible next step though there's probably similarly applicable ones (I'm not pointing to e.g. WP Internet Culture because it doesn't look very active). — Bilorv (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's a bias in RSes, I'm saying there's a bias in your comment. The notability standard for a list is whether the group or set has been discussed in RSes as a group or set, and "Contrapoints episodes" certainly have been discussed by reliable sources. In fact they've been discussed in many of the very sources we use in this article; it's very difficult to talk about Contrapoints as a channel without discussing episodes of Contrapoints. Comparing that to a personal YouTube channel of an actor is missing why we have a page on Contrapoints in the first place.

For the record, we also have a List of Simpsons episodes (~700ish long), and even a list of Lists of web series episodes, which includes some lists that are quite long. Did you know there have been 633 Annoying Orange episodes? I certainly didn't.

There's also MOS:TV, and the Wikiproject for internet culture, but WP YouTube appears to be fairly inactive. Feels like a thing we should probably have TBH, but its absence is probably why we don't automatically have lists of episodes of web content. Loki (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I see LokiTheLiar has just introduced an episode table in this edit and I oppose its inclusion (moreso the suggestion that it could include summaries and even dynamically changing view counts). The difference between The Simpsons and ContraPoints is that the former has received an inordinate amount of academic and high-quality journalistic treatment on an individual episode-by-episode, theme-by-theme, recurring-gag-by-recurring-gag, trope-by-trope basis, which ContraPoints (the channel) has simply not received. Instead ContraPoints is notable largely for a few simple narratives described in media: "deradicalizing alt-right men" and "being cancelled on Twitter" and so forth. No academic treatment of the videos on a granular description-by-description basis is known to me, except limited such content in sources like this tripleC paper (which would be good to incorporate into the article if Loki's aim is in expansion). Where are the secondary sources for "America: Still Racist" or "The Apocalypse" or "Men"? If we are to discuss individual episodes then it should be things like summarising/quoting the analytic content of this review of "Incels" in Polygon (rather than just mentioning the listing, as is done at present).

Setting a precedent for arbitrarily much coverage of a notable person/channel with no reference to due weight or sources specifically about a majority of the content is not healthy. As for List of Annoying Orange episodes (I think one of the worst-quality pages someone has ever linked to me as argument for precedent), I don't see how it would survive a deletion discussion based on contemporary notability standards as notability is not inherited. It has just primary sources (all but one implicit) as references but recall from WP:PRIMARY that we are told: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them (emphasis in original). — Bilorv (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There's also a list of episodes on Hello Internet, which is what I directly patterned this list off of.

But more to your point, the standard for having a page for a list of things is not that every item on the list needs to be notable, because that would be absurd. Even a show which obviously deserves a list of episodes, like List of The Simpsons Episodes, couldn't survive a standard of requiring every single episode to be individually notable. Which is why the actual standard is only that the set overall is notable. We easily have enough sources to defend the notability of the set of "Contrapoints episodes". And that's the standard for having an entire separate page for Contrapoints episodes, not for having the list of episodes of the show on its own page: as far as I can tell, there's no standard for that, we can just do it.

Plus, many of the episodes in the list (like Incels) are even notable all by themselves, which is, again, several layers above the actual bar here. Loki (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

But every episode of The Simpsons is notable for a standalone article (overwhelmingly so in most cases). This could be the source of where you're not understanding me. Additionally, "Incels" is not notable for a standalone article so far as I can see. I'm just confused about what your position is. I agree that not every episode of a show needs to be notable for an episode list to be warranted. And maybe you're agreed that not every topic warrants an episode list? So what is the specific set of criteria you believe needs to be met for an episode list to be warranted, and how are those criteria met here? (If you want to ask the same questions of me, first try to re-read my comments to work out how I would answer because I think I've implicitly answered both questions, except in the latter case I've described how the criteria are not met.) — Bilorv (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

These aren't "my position", these are all Wikipedia policies or guidelines:

• Per WP:NNC, there is no special notability requirement for a list of episodes (or any other material) within the primary article for a subject. The most direct discussion for inclusion of a list of works within the primary article is MOS:TIMELINE, which states: ...it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points, and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists per WP:Summary style. The information in this particular article is supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of its main points: we have a whole paragraph on "Incels" and another whole paragraph on "Opulence", and significant prose analysis of the overall style of the channel as well.
• The notability requirement for an episode list as its own page is that it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.
• The notability requirement for a single episode as its own page is that the episode itself is notable per the general notability guideline at WP:GNG.

Loki (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have been arguing that whether to include an episode list is not based on notability, whereas I'm unable to reconcile the above policies with your recent comment "the actual standard is only that the set overall is notable". You also said in that comment, "as far as I can tell, there's no standard for that, we can just do it". Maybe you've now found an answer, but you'll recall of course my quote from WP:PRIMARY above. But anyway the more I think about this, the more it seems to me that we don't have any disagreement about the base policies, but whether this article meets them. You say "we have a whole paragraph on 'Incels'". Err, no we don't. The middle sentences about The New Yorker and The Atlantic are discussing the channel as a whole. That leaves not-that-much about "Incels" as an "episode". Similarly, with "Opulence", all of it is about Buck Angel and Twitter drama. Not a single word is actually about the subject of the video, its central thesis, the aesthetics and production quality etc. In cases where we have episode lists (and it's not a policy violation by an overeager fan), there are reviews of the episodes that make specific commentary about the main characters, the main flaws, the writing, the humor, the visuals etc. What we have on this article just isn't the sort of in-depth information that supports an episode list. — Bilorv (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

So, upon re-reading I partially agree with you: the paragraphs we have on Incels and Opulence in the Reception section are more about reception than content. But this isn't a problem by itself, because dedicated pages about these episodes would also have reception sections; what matters is that we have sources about these episodes, and not what exactly those sources say about the episodes. Not a single word in the Reception section is about the topics of the videos, the aesthetics, or the quality of the argumentation, because we put all those words into the Youtube Career section.

And furthermore, if you still think this isn't enough, expand it! We certainly have enough sources about the content of specific episodes to be able to summarize several of them. Loki (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Profile in The Nation

New profile in The Nation that's worth incorporating if anybody has the time. Some key aspects: Wynn has about 14,000 (2 significant figures) Patreon supporters as of February 2021; "When I started making these videos, there was no such thing as LeftTube ... and so I was making videos for RightTube"; coverage of early videos, New Atheism and The Golden One response; coverage of cancel culture-related content; quotes from academics Susan Stryker and Steve Duncombe. — Bilorv (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And a profile in The Guardian whose useful elements (with respect to Wikipedia) might be some of the early life and early YouTube details. — Bilorv (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, added the Patreon number. Other information you brought up could still stand to be included! Likeanechointheforest (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of old videos

I figure there should probably be a mention of her removal of all her pre-transition content, as that was a big moment for the channel. Am I mistaken that it's not included here? MickRide808 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

What makes it a "big moment"? I am not necessarily saying it shouldn't be included, but if no secondary sources mention it, I would be curious about the rationale for including it. You've come to the right place to seek a consensus before adding it, though, so let's see what others think.--MattMauler (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's already mentioned under ContraPoints#Episodes (which I continue to believe should be removed in its entirety). — Bilorv (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Natalie's family life

Natalie mentioned in a Patreon stream that she had two brothers growing up; however, maybe a primary source isn't the best way of doing this? (i.e just linking the fanmade "clip" of it on YouTube) I'm not sure on the best way to go about this. Paging @Bilorv, DanielRigal, and LokiTheLiar: for their opinions. shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't link to copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER), so we can't link to clips of this on YouTube (anywhere on Wikipedia). Content that's still available but behind a paywall is sometimes permissible (i.e. giving an internal Patreon link that only works for subscribers). However, I would strongly object to inclusion of this fact as it's sensitive personal information about a living person, mostly irrelevant to the article topic, and there's no evidence that Wynn is comfortable with it being widely published (if she just mentioned it offhand in a long paywalled video). — Bilorv (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Bilorv on this. Unless she said it in a public interview we shouldn't include it. Loki (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this is pretty low importance information. If good sources come along to support it then it can be added later but it is not like there is a gaping hole in the article without it and we should not be reaching to include it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Won't be adding this in then and you're right that it isn't that important. shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Sections that need to be expanded to meet WP:GA standards

Looking at iJustine (a GA about a YouTuber) and this article, there's a couple of sections that could be expanded to be more encyclopedic and fit standards better. Writing this down here so that it's more obvious as to which sections need to be expanded.

• YouTube career (it moreso describes how her style works and not really much about her career)
• Reception (there needs to be a clear cut seperation between critical reception of her videos and the Twitter cancelling. Added a temporary subheader
• Personal life (it just seems a bit small? I don't know, I'll put a pin in this one for now)
• Possible impact section? Many news articles (here's one from MSNBC) described the impact Wynn has on young alt-right men's minds, so I think it's notable enough to be included.

Would like comments from other editors on how we could expand the article and possibly get it nominated for WP:GA. Thank you! shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

We should never have a target size in mind with "Personal life"—it should only contain very well-sourced things that we are sure are up-to-date (unless time periods are specified) and not misleading. As for the rest, again it's going to just depend on what reliable sources say, but I'm agreed with most of it. Some chronological progression of career would be nice; a subsection "Style" could contain the more holistic descriptions (e.g. "Wynn's videos often have a combative but humorous tone"). I'd like to see more analytic reception (made-up example: "costuming, graphics and props in video X are all chosen to evoke the main theme of Y") rather than general feedback ("ContraPoints is very good"). Reorganizing to have an "Impact" section (maybe a subsection under "Reception") could be a way of still incorporating general feedback, but with a lens of who is giving positive feedback and how the videos have affected them.

There's definitely GA potential here, but it needs someone to research what's missing and think carefully about how to arrange what's already there. — Bilorv (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2021

May you please add that her birth name is (removed) please? 64.237.85.136 (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Additionally they would have to have been notable under the previous name. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) see Talk:ContraPoints#Birth name should be added and WP:DEADNAME for more. also removing the above name.  melecie  t - 23:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Personal Life Should Probably be Updated (considering recent video)

ContraPoint's most recent video was partially about addiction, and she has mentioned previously that she has been struggling with addiction to opium, as well as other substances. Because this video seems to be the first in a sequence about addiction ("to be continued" at the end of the video), it seems pertinent to update her personal information page. Liv (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

We can only do that if it gets any RS coverage. Lets keep an eye out for any new interviews which might cover it. DanielRigal (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

We should beware of recentism: not every video necessitates prose additions. The video isn't really acceptable as verification because it doesn't explicitly say what she was addicted to and when—it's all allegory. The Instagram post is something, but I'm not convinced it rises to the threshold of acceptability. It would be ideal if a newspaper did a review of the YouTube video or an interview with Wynn about her real life circumstances, but unfortunately such sources are rare. — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This is actually a very good point actually, waiting to see how relevent the information is 2-3 weeks down the line is probably wise. Thank you all so much on the feedback! Liv (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking, like those commenting above, that we should wait until it gets some coverage/verification in reliable secondary sources, so this is why I put WP:PRIMARY in my edit summary. To answer your first question from my talkpage, If she were to open up a bit about her addiction in a profile like the one written by Nancy Jo Sales or the one in the New Yorker (any journalistic source really), then that would be the type of thing I would feel better about citing. To answer your Q about neutrality, I should have been clearer in my edit summary, my apologies: WP:DUE is a long policy, and the specific subsection that I was thinking of is WP:BALASP, making sure information is balanced and that minor aspects of the subject's biography don't receive more weight in the article than they're worth. This is a bit subjective (I still think the fact that she at one point wanted to be a novelist is trivial and unnecessary to include, for example, but it's in there anyway). In sum, I know that some might disagree with me, so that's why I was recommending coming to the talk page where we can have this discussion and get most regular editors of the article in on it.--So thanks for starting the thread.--MattMauler (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)