Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:35, 6 September 2019

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 July 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies: Person This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

A fact from ContraPoints appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 August 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the YouTube channel ContraPoints releases humorous, left-leaning educational videos responding to the arguments of the growing community of right-wing YouTubers? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2018/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/ContraPoints.

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)

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 , , . 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 Misplaced Pages entry. Umimmak (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

She also went on Chapo --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 (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 (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)

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)

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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages style guidelines so I'll defer if that would be a a violation. Voyaging 16:33, 30 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)

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 his first 29 years as Nick Parrott 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,just what does the ContraPoints operator have to hide that we should be complicit in hiding?...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)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Start-Class WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Start-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• Start-Class WikiProject Women articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles