Talk:Natalie Tran

Should this article exist?

This page has absolutely no reason to exist and jokes about the serious concept of wikipedia. Does the author really thinks every youtuber should have an article on a Enciclopedia? Please someone delete this article. It makes no sense. And diminishes credibility on wikipedia.--88.157.120.168 (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this article "jokes about the serious concept of wikipedia." This article has been improved since it was originally created (only a few days ago) and is now more encyclopedic than before and it contains legitimate references. I think there is still room for improvement but in only a couple days this article has made considerable progress and is a legitimate Wikipedia article at this point. Not every YouTuber has multiple articles about them in legitimate media sources or has made appearances or been featured in the media like she has. She has notability outside YouTube in the wider culture so she is notable enough to merit her own article in my opinion. If you want to debate whether this article should exist, you should go Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communitychannel-Schnurrbart (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"This page has absolutely no reason to exist and jokes about the serious concept of wikipedia." Hmm, looking around at the 7 billion pages on Buffy the Vampire slayer, pokemon creatures, etc -- I laugh at Mr/Ms 88.157 and his/her 'serious concept of wikipedia'. 03:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.183.171.4 (talk)

Wikipedia is supposed to be expansive. Tran is a minor celebrity (or a major Youtube, cult celebrity). Good enough, it stays. Jwkinraleigh (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This absurdity and low level in Wikipedia is too much to bear. It seems that nowadays every crap is included in the Wikipedia. Do you now start to include every non-relevant person to the Wikipedia, which published the most comments / videos / photos in any blog, forum or other social network? You people just become embarrassing. This is low quality work. 78.52.101.22 (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal editor's opinion's do not decide what is included in Wikipedia. Tran has been covered in numerous major publications in Australia and around the world as a Google news search would show. Deletion was already put to a vote and Keep won by a wide margin. The few arguments put forward so far for deletion consist only of strong POV opinions. Tran has had enough media coverage to be notable. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

As being discussed at the AfD this article should be moved to Natalie Tran. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• This name change is fine with me. That way, Natalie's article will conform to the naming conventions used for other notable YouTubers.-Schnurrbart (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• This name change is fine with me as well.----aaftabj-- (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• I strongly support the move for consistency with others. Hotcrocodile (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• I support a move to Natalie Tran. Mahanga^Talk 05:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Done. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright

The current images are copyrighted and can't be used in this manner, but there are two ways to include images:

• Natalie releases them under a free license (also allowing commercial use).
• We use low resolution screen shots with a non-free use rationale. This is a good example.

Since there are no disadvantages to using low resolution images to illustrate the article, I suggest re-uploading lower resolution images, using an appropriate license - everything you need can be found at the example I linked. Rror (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read the edit summary you reverted, you would see that there (probably) is a permission, but the OTRS ticket hasn't been received yet. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw the OTRS tag (added 5 days ago), but it doesn't contain a ticket number - is there a ticket at all? The di-no permission template you removed from the images should only be removed if a ticket number is present. Rror (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted User talk:Aaftabj‎, we are trying to get this sorted :) Ticket seems to be lost somewhere... Rror (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have resent the copyright permission to permissions-en at wiki. If I dont hear back from them in a week, I will delete the images and upload low res images as s----aaftabj-- (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)uggested by Rror.----aaftabj-- (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll leave this to you. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded low res pictures. permissions-commons@wiki answered. The email permission from Tran wasn't official enough, and I didn't bother to ask her to send in a detailed form. This is just easier.----aaftabj-- (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not, since the low res images are up for deletion. I'm hoping that User talk:Aaftabj‎ will resolve this with the admins, one way or the other. Radagast3 (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can approach Ms Tran again, and upload some authorised images? Radagast3 (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Arg! I cant believe how difficult this is. Ok, I will see if I can get Tran to authorize the high res version of the pictures.----aaftabj-- (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Humor" or "humour"

Which way should the word be spelled in the article? Both are correct spellings of the word so which one should be used-the Australian spelling or the American spelling?-Schnurrbart (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there is some back and forth regarding this and it doesn't really matter, let a guideline decide: WP:ENGVAR -> Australian spelling. Rror (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Natalie Tran on G4's Attack of the Show

Natalie Tran has been featured at least once as one of the "Women of the Web" on G4's Attack of the Show..[1] Does anyone know when her earlier appearance on the show was?-Schnurrbart (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy WP:BLP

Some highlights from the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

• Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

• Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability.

• Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known persons where the dates have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release; or have otherwise been widely published. Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private.

• In a similar vein, Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.

• In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material. Before adding or restoring material, the editor committing the edit must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources.

Radagast3 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

question?

ths artile seems more of a promotional stunt. how do I nominate it for deletion? Zobango (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has references out the wazoo. If I were you, I wouldn't even waste my time nominating it for deletion, because it will survive easily. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion in the past, and after discussion it was retained (see above). Radagast3 (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Vote on Internet culture importance scale?

I suppose we should give this article an importance rating on the internet culture basis, of which it's not yet recieved a rating. Who want's to do this? I suggest we put this as a mid-importance article as it's one of the highest viewed YouTube channels in the world. What do you think? Overthetop2 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've Just set the importance to low. I would agree with you for an assessment of youtube personalities, but internet culture is much more. Rror (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Proficient violin player

I added to the introductory sentence that Natalie is "a proficient violin player" and attached two citations, which are links to vlog episodes. One shows her discussing that she is a violinst, the other shows her playing. My edit was reverted by Apoc2400 because he/she said "proficient" is a POV word. I disagree. A POV description would have been to call her a prodigy or to say she plays beautifully. It's clear from watching her play that she isn't a novice. She plays without hesitation and demonstrates advanced techniques.

I added the information because it's pertinent, as it's what she studies at her arts college, though it would seem she likely takes some video production classes as well. Furthermore, don't revert the entire edit because you don't like one word. If you disagree with "proficient," find another word that accurately describes her obvious skill. But don't delete the only mention of her being a violinist. She thinks it's worth informing the viewers about, and she displays the violin in virtually every video. I was actually surprised no one else had mentioned it. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In any case, she is not famous for being a violin player, so it doesn't belong in the introduction. Possibly somewhere further down, but even there we should have a secondary source (new article etc.) mentioning it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a question of neutrality, this is simply original research (WP:OR). But pretty much the whole 'Videos' section is based on original research - people watch a video, and then describe/interpret what they saw. Rror (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, she's not famous for playing violin. But if all we wrote in biographies were what made people famous, they'd just be lists of films they were in or hit songs they recorded, etc. Now, if this was an article about nothing but her YouTube activity -- say, if the article was titled CommunityChannel -- then her violin-playing wouldn't belong in the opening sentence. But the article is titled Natalie Tran, so I believe if she's a violinist attending an arts college, that is part of her primary identity. I've seen plenty of articles that begin: "Snoop-Pup-E-Cat is an American rapper and venture capitalist," etc., where the fact that he invests in startup businesses is tangential to his fame, but pertinent to understanding who he is.

Regarding original research, describing something learned from non-written sources doesn't equal original research. Original research refers to making statements you can't verify through a published source. The videos are published sources and there for anyone to check. It's like saying the plot summaries in movie articles are original research unless based on a set of written cliff notes. Information about what happens in a video/film can be policed for accuracy and POV by all the editors who have seen or can see the same material. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I just gave the intro a fresh read and didn't like the sound of it myself, so I just changed "proficient violinist" to "student violinist." I hope we can agree that isn't POV. Is there any more discussion of whether it belongs in the opener or whether that's original research? --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I just plain old took it out. It needs a secondary source, as far as I'm concerned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting it back in. There is no Wikipedia standard for having two published sources for every fact, and "as far as I'm concerned" is not an argument. If you want to make it an edit war we can call in the administrators. Discussion exists to establish consensus based on logical discussion, not for you to just jump in and do your own thing because you can't support your position. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you know what she is studying at her university? Just because she plays the violin doesn't mean she is studying that at her uni. Maybe she learned how to play when she was in grade school. The point is we don't know what she is studying at her school. Also, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning that she plays the violin (along with the links you posted earlier) but this fact is more like trivia and belongs elsewhere in the article and not in the very first sentence.-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point about verifying if she's a violin student, but it's hardly trivia. You would have to refute my point about how such things are central to the identity of other celebrities. You're being silly about "maybe she learned it in grade school." Virtually no one takes up violin in college, but if they're any good at it and go to an art school, they aren't studying it any more. They just practice a lot and perform now and then, for credit. If you're encouraging me to dig for more verification, I will. But I think the information stands because she is a violinist and a student, and that isn't a matter of controversy. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that her ability to play the violin is central to her identity? Maybe she is a serious violinist or maybe she just plays once in a while for fun. I have no idea what the case is and that is my point. If you can show that being a violinist really is central to her identity then putting it in the beginning of the article is justified but not otherwise. Also, the way you word it ("student violinist") made me think she was studying the violin at her uni. If you meant something else, please word things differently because it confused me and will probably confuse other people who will read this article in the future.-Schnurrbart (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that Snoop-Pup-E-Cat's venture capitalism is central to his identity? It's not like we hand out questionnaires to subjects of biographies asking them to list things that will stroke their egoes most. This isn't an exercise in mind-reading. I'm talking about what are the few facts that tell you most about what a person does, the kind of things people want to hear when they say, "So what does she do?" You need to make a credible case for why it wouldn't be central to her identity. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In the case of your hypothetical rapper, there would be secondary sources describing his business activities. If this rapper was involved in a number of such deals and substantial amounts of money were involved, we would be justified in calling him a venture capitalist. In the case of Natalie Tran, all we have are two videos in which she says she plays the violin and her playing it. I don't see how this shows that playing the violin is central to her personality. You need more evidence that shows that this is the case. The burden of proof is on you to show that playing the violin is central to her identity.-Schnurrbart (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I already rejected your premise that I have to "prove" it's central to her identity, because this isn't a matter of mystery. Your argument is still that there isn't a credible source. If there was a printed article that said she played violin, that wouldn't constitute any more "proof" than the audio-visual source. By mixing your argument, it seems you're still treating this as if it were a matter of her self-identity. But ask a celebrity what's central to their identity and they'll usually cite something touchy-feely that didn't make them famous. But if we know it occupies her time and would fit the broad description "What does she do?", then (for the sake of those who can't consider identity as an external concept, but think it's strictly a matter of self-identity) it's a pertinent fact for describing the person, Natalie Tran, to people wanting to learn about her. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The information included in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. This is especially true when it comes to controversial claims in which a number of editors disagree. If you cannot verify that playing the violin is central to her identity, the that claim should not be made. I'm not denying that she plays the violin. You could include that somewhere in the article along with the links to the videos you mentioned. However, like I said above, just because she plays the violin doesn't necessarily mean that this is central to her identity.-Schnurrbart (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Being oblivioius and repetitive is not the same as establishing a logical argument. You are not refuting my point. You cannot possibly make a serious case that we need evidence of how important she considers violin-playing to her self-identity, to establish whether it is DESCRIPTIVE of her. On the short list of things to describe what makes Natalie Tran unique and identifiable, would violin-playing fit? Quit hammering away at an exclusive interpretation of my first word choice, and concentrate on the actual line of reasoning here. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To see if we can settle this, I've put a query on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. We'll probably all learn something from this. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Her playing the violin in a video doesn't mean that it is a core part of her life. One of my friends won a piano competition when he was in 10th grade, but the standard of playing was good enough for 2nd year university. He later did medicine, so having a video of a proficient player does not demonstrate that she is a "student violinist" (ie training to be a violinist as a first priority). Just stating "is a violinist" in a lead would suggest her career is as a musician, of which there is no proof either. Adding in the body that she plays her violin on her videos is fine. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No proof that she is an arts student YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Monkey, you're making points that have already been made and ignoring the refutations of them. An appeal to admin establishes that the source is sufficient to support the statement. I'm fine engaging in an edit war, because it's the editor who ignores guidance and doesn't support his reverts with sound arguments who gets blocked. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything in those videos where she says she is studying a Bachelor or Masters in Arts, or a PhD in Arts? If not it is OR. I don't have the video but from what you are doing above, you have "deduced" that she is. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you might argue that someone attending medical school isn't necessarily getting a medical degree? But to be perfectly free of controversy, and since she actually says in one webisode that she attends an "arts college," I've changed the statement to "arts college student." And what's with your arbitrary demand that I prove she's a professional violinist? She's a student, she obviously doesn't have a profession. Her YouTube videos aren't a profession.

But if you're now only objecting to her being called an art student, I don't understand you reverting the part about her being a violinist, or especially reverting a purely style-based edit spelling out and hyphenating "2nd generation." This seems hostile of you. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So we see her playing the violin and she is a violinist. We have also seen her dancing and singing in her videos, so why not say "Natalie Tyler Tran is a student, violinist, singer and dancer"? Maybe because this gives undue weight? The linked videos are not even a primary source, because you don't hear "I'm a violinist". Given the length of the discussion above, this is a big guessing game, and as such should be avoided completely if dealing with biographies. Rror (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The degree of skepticism necessary to take your argument seriously would have me wondering if I were a butterfly dreaming I'm a man (Google it if you don't understand the reference). There has never been a guideline that you can only include direct quotes from primary sources. Paraphrasing or distilling is essential when translating video sources to a written article, and even for condensing material from written sources or simply avoiding plagiarism. As for the kernel of your comment, I can just say that being an extreme skeptic doesƒ not equal analysis. Anyone could keep throwing out accusations that "You have no proof!" if they just keep getting more and more nitpicky. I know I don't like it when people start questioning my motives, since I prefer them to concentrate on my line of reasoning, but your reasoning is devolving into what appears simple obstructionism, and I'm starting to wonder if your motive is really to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, or if for some reason you just don't want Natalie Tran to be described for any accomplishment besides her vlogging. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Must I mention again that I took this matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and got input from admin? The response was that the source is reliable enough for saying she is a violinist. So you're wasting your time discussing that further here. If you want admin to reverse the opinion, go to the noticeboard and make your argument there. If you revert for no other reason than your extreme skepticism, you're edit-warring and will eventually get blocked. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

On the notice board you claim: "She is explicit in her vlog about being a violinist and attending art school". I can't seem to find this in either one of the videos used as sources. Could you please give me the exact time positions where this is mentioned? Rror (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In the first video at around 5:07, she promises to make a "violin video" and discusses playing an instrument and being Asian. In the second video at around 2:17, she says that she "plays functions" and then briefly plays the violin. Saying that she is a "violinist" is likely to confuse people who are reading the article because they are likely to assume this means she is a professional violinist. Wikipedia articles should be as clear as possible and ambiguity of this sort should be corrected if possible to prevent misunderstandings. If this information is included in the article, it should say that she "plays the violin" since that is less likely to confuse people. I still don't see how this is central to her identity. Your arguments about her self-identity are irrelevant. Her "identity" is what she is known for. She is known for her vlogging and this is amply documented in the article. She is not known for playing the violin. I don't know how personally significant playing the violin is to her (probably not that significant because she says that she hasn't picked up the violin in a long time in the box next to the second video) but that is not what she is notable for so you are wrong to argue that playing the violin is central to her identity-Schnurrbart (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the violinist statement. If you you want to include 'she is playing the violin in one video', be my guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rror (talk • contribs)

You would be correct to remove it and with your rationale for removing it. This is a biography of a living person, and this is apparently controversial information, considering the discussion we've been having about it. And without a strong, reliable source, such things default to remove on BLP articles. Additionally, the only person calling for the "violinist" inclusion is Preston McConkie. No one else seems to agree with its inclusion.

And Preston McConkie - threatening to take people "to admin" or "call in the administrators" is uncivil. At least one of the people disagreeing with you is an administrator. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling in administrators is merely the appropriate step to take when you insist on ignoring a previous opinion by an administrator. Since you have an alternative interpretation of whether the administrator's guidance applies based on the premise of my question, I am re-opening the issue on the notice board, which is what you should have done yourself before removing the content. If you care at all about behaving professionally you won't revert until the proper administrator agrees with you.

Having taken the proper steps on every occasion so far, I'll feel free to undo any further interference. And if an administrator is already involved, he/she should identify him/herself and explain that he/she is making an official ruling on the matter. Also, just because a few people put up a fuss does not mean the material is controversial. Including the material would not be libelous to Tran or anyone else. No one has yet to explain why they consider this such a terrible thing to add to the article; the only contention seems to be about whether it's properly sourced. A bunch of people being insistent that they're right and I'm wrong does not mean the material in question is itself controversial. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, regarding "identity," the purpose of these articles is to tell people more than what they may already know. That's why people look up articles. I already dealt with the notion that we only mention what makes people famous in their bios. No one is explaining the assertion that we don't talk about things they aren't known for; they just keep making the assertion. If a famous person DOES something that is noteworthy, it belongs in the bio, whether or not that fact is widely known yet. This still feels to me like people arguing that we can't treat being a violin player as being any more noteworthy than the fact that she uses glue and cardboard to make some of her props.

I would like to wait the comparatively short time it may take for an administrator who specializes in source reliability to look into this conflict, since the only real issue here is whether the source supports the statement I wrote. If that administrator explains that I'm mistaken, I'll be happy to go with the compromise and simply say that in one of her videos she plays the violin, and also mention that she displays her violin in her room in most of her videos. That is a particularly bland type of writing, which takes more words, but sometimes blandness is unavoidable if we're to stick only to the facts. I believe the facts that are available do support the simple statement "a violinist," but I'm willing to abide by the proper administrator's judgment. And I also expect to understand the issue better afterward. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Schuminweb, your definition of controversial is impossible. Otherwise any time an argument started over whether something was proper, the very existence of an argument would mean it had to be thrown out. So people would only need to voice their objections, thereby establishing a controversy, regardless of the merits of their objections. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected

Discuss. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this decision. It is unfortunate when some editors resort to being uncivil and trying to intimidate and make threats against other editors but since we are at this point I think protecting the article is the best way to stop the situation from becoming even worse. Perhaps at a later time the article can be re-opened but until then people can suggest ways to improve the article on the talk page and an admin can decide if any changes should be made.-Schnurrbart (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just to that point that I got so annoyed with it all that I stepped back, put my admin hat on, and locked the blasted thing. And I'm not unlocking it until everyone comes to an agreement on the matter. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. This is getting out of hand. I'll attempt a summary:User:Preston McConkie had the fixed idea that Tran is studying violin at an arts college and she directly states that she is a violinist. User:Apoc2400, User:SchuminWeb, User:Schnurrbart, User:YellowMonkey and myself all tried very patiently to explain to him that those statements are wrong, why such statements need reliable sources, that one single event in a video should not be presented so prominently, and so on. All those rational arguments have been ignored, because according to Preston McConkie it is "obvious" how good she is playing, and lately that therefore she must at least be an amateur violinist. Why are we going through those motions? We are just going in circles all the time. Regardless of how much opposition the additions of one editor have gathered, WP:BLP clearly states we need a good source for stuff like that - end of story. I won't comment on this any further, enough time has been wasted. Rror (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rror, although I'm having a hard time getting some folks to stop using arguments that were always irrelevant, or became irrelevant because of changes to the text and changes in what I want to include, I am not the one going in circles. The discussion has been clouded with all sorts of frivolous objections, but it now boils down to one issue, as I've stated on the noticeboard discussion. If you feel we're going in circles it's because you're insisting on total victory (and as I've been reminded lately, it's not about winning), so that nothing else seems like progress.

As I wrote on the noticeboard, "I think once again this is just you saying you don't think the source is sufficient to clearly establish she is a 'violinist'; or in other words, you're saying that we can't conclude from the video that she has noteworthy familiarity and facility with the instrument." If that's what your saying, then fine, and make your case. Or if you think calling her an "amateur violinist" doesn't reasonably convey that message, you could suggest a different means of expression.

You can claim your reason for giving up is exhaustion, but when I make the issue so plain and all you have to say is yes or no, it seems like you may have actually exhausted the means of logically addressing my position (since I have refined that position in response to previous arguments and suggested changes). A naked appeal to authority is certainly an attempt to shut down discussion -- but it's hardly a closing argument. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember when this article was first created and people were calling for it to be deleted because it looked like a fan page rather than a legitimate encyclopedia entry. A number of editors worked on it so that it became a legitimate Wikipedia article by establishing her notability and by making other improvements. Now one editor wants to start adding things to the article that she says she does in her videos such as playing the violin. They argue that anything that occupies her time and that she does is worth adding. Adding anything that describes her and anything someone might wonder about her should be added, according to this editor. That might be fine for a fan site but not for an encyclopedia article. If we did that, the article would quickly degenerate into a huge mass of random trivia about her filled with links to her videos in which she mentions something she does, regardless of how banal it may be. For example, in a recent video she said she went to the Supanova convention in Sydney dressed as a character from Battlestar Galactica. Since going to conventions and cosplaying are something she does, shouldn't they be added to the article? She also mentions her fish in a number of videos. Like her violin, her fish tank is in the background in many of her videos. Shouldn't we mention that she is an aquarist because of this? She has also mentioned reading books and watching films in her videos. She even lists some of her favorites on her channel page. Since these things are things she does and that occupy her time, shouldn't they be added to the article? The list of things she does could go on and on. If people add a bunch of things she does and things that occupy her time that someone might wonder about or that could describe her, other editors will see this article as just a mass of trivia and a fan page again and the article will be deleted or all of this excess material will have to be deleted to keep it. We should maintain this article as a legitimate encyclopedia article and not let it degenerate into a mess.-Schnurrbart (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Schnurrbart, I agree completely with your point, though not necessarily your conclusion. I have actually addressed that before, because it was suggested -- I'm not rereading right now to see just who suggested it -- that I should only write that she plays her violin during one webisode. I said that would only open the way for including all types of trivia. That's why I've insisted that, if the information about her being a violin player is included at all, it needs to be said briefly and in the context of being noteworthy.

Once again, we're back to what I consider the nutshell of the issue. Does the webisode showing her playing not establish that she has noteworthy familiarity and facility with the instrument, sufficient for her to be called an amateur violinist? I know you are annoyed with me for sticking to this so long, and for that reason you may not be reading my earlier remarks with as much attention and understanding as you otherwise would. But I don't want this to become a fan article. I despise endless lists of trivial crap bulking out stories that should be concise and filled only with noteworthy information. That's why I changed my suggested wording.

But I think this still remains on one side of a bright line dividing noteworthy information from trivia. I don't think calling her an amateur violinist will create a precedent for describing every little thing she does in her videos. Partly, I'm relying on editors to have some basic perspective, or an understanding of what it takes to become a violinist. To get any good with it takes more work than to become a solo-licensed airplane pilot. Anyone can own a fish tank and anyone can make a video, but not just anyone can pick up a bow and crank out a piece of symphony music with deliberate verbrato and no sour scraping of strings. I don't think we'd be having this argument if her video showed her doing acrobat moves in a biplane.

But Schnurrbart, I am grateful that you're touching on WHY this is an important discussion. I totally agree with your concern about protecting this article from becoming a fansite. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that learning to play the violin is not an easy accomplishment. In the first violin video she alludes to this when she complains that people are not impressed when Asians are proficient at playing an instrument. I think that where we differ in our opinions is in what is "notable." To me this means she is known to the wider society for the notable characteristic. For example, she is known for her comedy sketches and they have been the focus of most of the news stories about her in the reference section of this article. My question is, Is she known for playing the violin? Have there been any news stories or other type of secondary sources that included her violin-playing? In the second violin video she did mention playing at "functions" so maybe she is somewhat known for playing the violin. Perhaps this aspect of her life has been noted elsewhere that I am unaware of. I just don't know enough about it to say either way. That could possibly be one approach to verifying that she is a notable violinist. If no sources can be found, I think that it would be best to mention the fact she plays the violin in the section of this article that describes her videos. We could say something like "Tran has discussed playing the violin in several videos." or something similar along with the links you added earlier. Oddly enough, she discussed playing the violin in her latest video at around 1:20 so that could be another reference link. If there currently are no secondary references to her playing the violin, perhaps there will be in the future if she becomes more famous and this information can be moved up to the biographical section of the article. This is what I think is the best course of action at this time.-Schnurrbart (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand that you believe something isn't established as notable unless we have evidence that others consider it as such, or unless she makes a more specific statement about her playing. I am not claiming she is known for her playing, so I should say I consider this "noteworthy" information. I think the word "notable" encompasses that meaning, while saying someone is "noted" for such-and-such does not.

wait LOL. this makes me laugh. - your mum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.172.194 (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally think the information available is sufficient to merit a mention, based on reasonable perspective of what is or isn't notable/noteworthy. However, since we're now discussing that issue more or less directly, if there is consensus that we need more evidence to support calling her an amateur violinist, I'll relent. I don't personally want to just say she plays it in one webisode or that she mentions it occasionally, because I think that sets a precedent for adding things that aren't noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia bio -- in other words, trivia.

But at this point I think the issue has been distilled sufficiently that, if nobody chimes in to support my opinion, I'll consider the matter resolved and not challenge the removal of the words "amateur violinist." If I think I find better support later, I'll bring it up on this page before adding a reference to her violin-playing. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could say something like, "Tran is an amateur violinist and has talked about playing the violin in several of her videos and played in one." and then include links to the videos as references. I think this statement would go best in the section of the article that discusses her videos because they are what we are using for references and we are talking about the content of several of her videos. If we find a secondary source that makes reference to her violin-playing in the future we could move the statement up to the main biographical section. That's what I think we should do for the time being.-Schnurrbart (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased with your proposal. For the sake of being more colorful, how about "Tran is an amateur violinist who has joked that no one is surprised when they learn an Asian plays a musical instrument. She displays her violin in many videos and has played it in one." That's wordier, I know, but it would be supported by the references we've gathered. What say ye? --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that.-Schnurrbart (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Having received a request on my talk page to unprotect, are we all in agreement now? Looking for agreement from Schnurrbart, Preston McConkie, and Rror in particular. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Me and McConkie reached an agreement over the weekend so I approve unprotecting the article and making the changes described above.-Schnurrbart (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I approve unprotecting. Rror hasn't chimed in for a while, but I like what Schnurrbart has proposed. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is done. Play nicely, everyone. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm living a GMT at the moment, so I won't be able to answer at 1am :) It's too late now, but fine with me. --Rror (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

DOB?

I just changed it to 24th, because of another reference which indicated that.AndrewHarvey4 (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting :) The poster that Olmos signed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irf0zRW_jw4 @1:38) reads: "... on this your birthday ... 7.23.09". Now we only have a not so nice reference for the birth day and month (combine what's spoken on video with month of video upload), but not the year. Rror (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

She released this video yesterday (on the 23rd July) stating it was her birthday that day. So i think 23rd should be correct. 92.229.30.148 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Aaftabj removed the DOB information from the userbox and the edit summary read: "Removed birthdate. See guidelines for live biographies. Personal security info like birthdays should not be posted." The relevant guidelines are here. I don't think her DOB should be removed from the article because she revealed this information in two of her videos so I don't she objects to this information being publicly known. -Schnurrbart (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, I see where both sides are coming from, but I agree more with Aaftabj on this one. The policy states, "one or more reliable sources", and we don't have that. Tran's own videos are primary sources. If that Rolling Stone article comes to fruition, then there's your reliable source. Until then, yeah, the date of birth should stay out. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The DOB needs to be fixed, and since the page is protected I can't change it myself. If her DOB is going to be included, then it should be the correct date. In this video (approximately 4 minutes in) Tran directly states that her birthday is on the 24th, not the 23rd. I assume that the reason for the confusion is the time zone difference between Australia and America. --71.226.62.137 (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Her birthday is definitely on 24 July, but what is the source for the year (1986)? I ask this because this Forbes article states she is 23 years old (at the time the article was written), which would make her year of birth 1987. Unless Forbes got it wrong, although I find that unlikely as they actually interviewed her in the article. U-238 (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone article

In Natalie's latest video, she says she was interviewed for a possible Rolling Stone article. We should keep this in mind because that could be a good information source and reference.-Schnurrbart (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Australian Idol?

Natalie posted a picture of herself sitting in one of the judge's seats at the rehearsals of Australian Idol (I assume) on twitter.[2] Did she/will she make an appearance on the show? It would be great if someone who watches the show could find out.-Schnurrbart (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

the infobox is wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.186 (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

communitychannel vs. ChannelATA

Apparently there is a friendly rivalry between these two Youtube channels. Natalie mentioned this in one of her videos. Gatting87 (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, something should be mentioned about this in the article. 95.146.233.95 (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Ohyeahpaulchin, 17 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} At the end of the first paragraph, it should read that she is actually a FIRST generation Vietnamese Australian. Her parents emigrated from Vietnam.

Ohyeahpaulchin (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean immigrated? Please provide a reliable source and I'll add it. Airplaneman ✈ 05:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I could only find references to Tran as second generation and provided what I believe is a reliable source. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In this video, her mum makes reference to growing up in Vietnam. Sure, it's a sequence of an embellishment on Tran's real life, but still probably accurate. Also, they emigrated from Vietnam and immigrated to Australia. Ohyeahpaulchin (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We would need a published source. Our using what the mother said in a Youtube video is considered "original research". There's simply no way for us to know if the mother was talking as a work of fiction. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mintaek0764, 17 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Can you add this tag under the article?

ko:나탈리 트랜

because I translated this article to Korean. And I think connecting two article would be better than being separated. Thank you

Mintaek Lee (이민택) 09:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 Already done – a robot beat me to it! Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter

She deleted her official twitter. I suspect this means she's not making any more youtube videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenosy (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No, her Twitter account is still active. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

How come I can't edit the article?

I want to update the image of Natalie with a better one, but I see no edit button. Can someone help me out? :--Homezfoo (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That is quite strange. Try this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalie_Tran&action=edit&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro

Make sure the image has a free use license though. I am the editor who uploaded the current one, and while it isn't great, I used it because it's the only one I could find with a license Wikipedia can use.Enigmocracy (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, and you are logged into your old account. Use your new username. NW (Talk) 16:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol, silly me, I was logged into my old account. Old habits are hard to break, lol. Thanks. @Enigmocracy, don't worry, it's the same picture, but just slightly improved, in my opinion. I just tried to make the best of what we got. --Thesadisticcheeseburgerpickle1 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Thegeniusboy05, 7 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

A few days ago, a user added her birthday (with no citation) as "July 23, 1986". However, in her "getting in shape"video from 2007, she states that her birthday is on July 24th. I'm not autoconfirmed,so I can't make the edit. Thegeniusboy05 (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct. She actually says "my birthday's on the 24th." In the other videos she says "today's my birthday" and the posting date is 23rd - but that's probably the time difference between US and Australia. Made the change. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am that user, and I just copied the birthday from the infobox. It does have a citation over there. Styath (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

natalietran.me

Just to notify you that [natalietran.me] redirects to the youtube page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.146.72 (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Siblings?

It may not be important, but I just noted that in talking nonsense, she stated that her sister was getting married soon (indicating that she has a sister). I was wondering if anyone knew whether she had any other siblings, or if that was even important. Unlike some other YouTubers, I noticed that she rarely talks about her family.

Nationality

I see there's an unresolved issue of her nationality being debated over the last few days. If her parents are both Vietnamese or whatever they are, doesn't that make her a Vietnamese-Australian? Furthermore, if she calls herself "Vietnamese-Australian" then it should be included. If she calls herself just plain "Australian", then it's slightly more contentious to call her Vietnamese-Australian in the article although it still has some merit, since she wouldn't be a plain old Australian if her parents weren't and she doesn't act Australian. I'm just saying that hypothetically; I don't know where her parents are from or whether she acts Australian, since she's not even famous. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

The above ignores past arguments. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Then why in the World are you even here, then, pray tell? There are anyway four definitions for the term "nationality", for a person, which are, firstly, the "legal nationality", or citizenship (i.e., the Country that issued his current or his last passport); and secondly, the "ethnic nationality" ("ethnic identity", or "ethnicity"); and thirdly, incorrectly, an euphemism or a substitute term for race, or for colour; and fourthly, also incorrectly, an euphemism or a substitute term for the place of birth. At Wikipedia, usually, only the first definition is used, and for the second definition, the word "ethnicity" is usually simply used instead. Tran was born in the Commonwealth of Australia, with an Australian birth certificate and an Australian passport, full stop, and for most who edit Wikipedia, Tran is an Australian and her nationality is as such, and is to be written as such, no if's, no but's. Even if she were proclaiming (calling) herself to be a quote "Vietnamese-Australian" unquote, yet in Wikipedia, she still has to be called an Australian. And what is the definition of a quote "Old Australian" unquote? According to whom, and according to what law? — KC9TV 14:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Vidstatsx sourced content

Vidstatsx is not a reliable source, it ranks three channels in its top 10, that don't have any videos. There is no reliable source stating she is the fourth most subscribed Australian. What does "of all time" mean, and why is it stated? There is no reliable source stating she is the 47th most-subscribed comedy vlogger, in fact it sounds like synth. There is no reliable source stating she averages 1.52 million views per upload, it spells like OR, and is close to not needing to be mentioned anyways. The succession boxes are outdated, unreferenced, and the linked articles don't continue the succession. These removals don't need to be discussed, WP:BLPREMOVE. 117Avenue (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is Vidstatsx a reliable source to cite YouTube statistics? A previous discussion at WP:RSN received little input, so the question is being reposted here. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep Vidstatsx statistics

1. Support as original poster. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

VDX uses a professional mathematical modeling program and is an important source for data. Bshawnp (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I support keeping the source. Thanks. Wickedlizzie (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No self-published statistics

• YouTube is the most reliable source for it's own statistics. --I dream of horses (T) @ 15:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose use only for this article. I verified that this company's statistics have been used by the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Economist, and other respected publications, so I would consider it an appropriate source in the right context. However, this article already reads like a fan page and does not stand to benefit from adding more facts about her YouTube activities. It's as spurious a fact as mentioning how many followers she has on Twitter, which IMO should be removed. Andrew³²⁷ 19:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Vidstatsx, SocialBlade, and the like are self-published. Sadly, they also provide needed statistics for YouTubers such as "CommunityChannel" Natalie Tran. Is there a reliable source that provides these statistics? Is there any harm in using these self-published sources even if they are otherwise reliable mathematically? Chris Troutman (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean "reliable mathematically"? How can you say that "CommunityChannel" is 47th (or whatever it is today), when three channels in its "top 10" don't have any videos? It is difficult for me to take it reliably. 117Avenue (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Upon what facts do you base your claim? Vidstatsx's Top 10 subscribed and Top 10 most viewed both roughly match YouTube statistics. I have yet to understand why you've engaged in this vendetta but I'm sure we'll all see it soon enough. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Vidstatsx cannot be dismissed so easily as "unreliable". Their numbers are widely quoted and often in reliable "old" media. Here are links to Forbes and Washington Post who have used their numbers: http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2013/05/06/can-google-convince-teens-to-pay-for-youtube-videos/ http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-06/business/39055254_1_youtube-users-1-billion-views-smosh

I have no idea what is meant by "self-published" as a criticsm. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure you can verify that a specific channel has roughly the same subscriber count on YouTube as Vidstatsx, but how do you know that it isn't missing one with more subscribers? Those Forbes and Post articles don't venture out of the top 10. And why is this source needed anyways? To state what the current channel ranking is? That changes daily, a Wikipedia article is not an excessive list of statistics or directory. 117Avenue (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think 117Avenue just hit the nail on the head. A source can pass WP:RS without needing to be included. I don't see how inclusion of Vidstatsx would make this a better article. Andrew³²⁷ 19:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

On the VDX matter. Even if the site is "self-published", the sophisticated proprietary data modeling program it uses is not. Indeed, the mathematical modeling system employed by VDX is among the data collection processes used on Bloomberg Machines, a hi-tech computer found in most financial offices. I use one regularly. Simply put, a complex data program that can accurately perform averages, compare and compile rankings, while making future projections based on the available information is a serious tool. For a more complete Natalie Tran page, the source should be used. Good day to all. Bshawnp (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Source? 117Avenue (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The validity of inclusion of specific content can be discussed case-by-case, but this discusion is the flat assertion that Vidstatsx is an unreliable source. I believe the use of their numbers by several reliable media argues against that assertion. (Sorry, don't understand what is meant by "Those Forbes and Post...top 10".) BashBrannigan (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Forbes and Post articles linked above only use Vidstatsx to name some of the channels in the top 10 subscribers and the top 10 viewed, the "use of their numbers" is not there. Since you added your comments below my "Source?" comment, I would again like to ask Bshawnp his source for "the mathematical modeling system employed by VDX". 117Avenue (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is that Forbes and Post and other reliable media reference Vidstatsx, which argues against your outright rejection of Vidstatx as unreliable. BashBrannigan (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't "Do other people use this as a source", the question is "Should we use it as a source?". And I think my answer to that is "No, because why not use YouTube instead?" I dream of horses (T) @ 15:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I said, the VDX data model is proprietary—a protected ‘white box’ collection system to be precise. The program is specifically designed to organize, interpret and present an inordinate amount of data in a fashion that is both readable and digestible. It is among the modeling systems used by research analysts—like myself—as well as financial analysts, economists, mathematicians, and sociologists. In other words, it is an industry standard. VDX did not reinvent the wheel.

Sadly, YouTube does not afford its viewers with anything approaching the level of data that VDX provides—although they surely could. In using a recognizable and trusted modeling system, VDX helps interested parties, like Forbes, for instance, acquire valuable figures in order to form a more complete picture.

All told, this is the best case I can make without employing overly technical or academic language, the language of which I am accustom. Good day to all. Bshawnp (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is Vidstatsx and if it is a source, why is there a problem with it? I'm new to RfCs, so forgive my lack of knowledge. Thanks. Wickedlizzie (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Why would we include this anywhere? I routinely remove YouTube and VEVO viewing statistics when I encounter them in articles. There's no reason for us to be providing a ratings service.—Kww(talk) 22:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We frequently include TV viewing statistics and I see no difference. As long as the statistics are reliable, and there is evidence VDX is, then there is no reason to remove it. It is relevant to the popularity, just as it is with TV programs. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Vidstatsx isn't used by the media as much as TV ratings organizations are. 117Avenue (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's true and it's a valid point, but Tran works in the area of new media and many aspects of it are still evolving. TV ratings are long established and better known, but the principal is the same. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, television ratings exist because they support the financial underpinnings for broadcast television. They are crucial to the business. This isn't.—Kww(talk) 05:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Could we quote from both sources? We could let the reader decide the reliability of the sources this way. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 19:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.