# Talk:Pastel QAnon

Many facts are backed up with multiple secondary sources; however one entire section which contains 2 sentences only has one citation that seems unrelated to the facts presented.
Not all sources that should have been used were used; there are no sources discussing the topic with POC women, and only one source specifically talking about the topic with white women. Sources mainly contain information about how QAnon conspiracies are spreading to other platforms, how the conspiracy originated, and political/news events related to QAnon such as the attack on the Capitol and the Nashville Bomber. There are a few related sources about pastel QAnon, such as sources about yoga, women making the conspiracy aesthetic, and mom groups. Sources are diverse. Better and more numerous sources are available that more relate to the topic at hand. More sources should include how the conspiracy targets marginalized women or victimized women. There should also be more sources about how pastel QAnon is stylized and spread throughout social media platforms. Links work.
One source is not reliable -- a youtube video by a television host -- and this source seems to be used about 10 times in the article.Jennameyers106 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Jennameyers106: for this. I see you're a student editor but you're already showing a good understanding of the Reliable Sources policy. I what you say is right, especially about how it needs more sources about the groups targeted by Pastel QAnon. Could you go further and find some suitable sources yourself? If you don't add them directly to the article, you can post them here on the Talk page. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Also thanks Jennameyers106, I did my best when writing the article to find as many sources as I could. I really agree about the issue with lack of sources discussing impact on women of colour, I just couldn't find any. I think one issue is people are writing about pastel QAnon without using the term, just saying QAnon and its just getting lost in the sea of content about them. If you find any additional sources please feel free to add them and any other information included (this seems to be a topic where quite a lot of content is being produced). Or if you would prefer just add the references and suggested text to the talk page. Since you're a student would you be able look behind the paywall of some journals for sources? The two people I see writing about this most are Becca Lewis and Marc-André Argentino but I'm sure there are others. I think also there are probably interviews on podcasts with QAnon experts which would be helpful eg QAnon Anonymous, I don't have the stomach to hear about the stuff for very long. One question, why do you think the Samantha Bee Youtube reference isn't reliable?
Thanks again
John Cummings (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there – I know I'm fairly late to the party, and didn't see these messages on the talk page before I began my major restructuring of the article. Hopefully it is okay now!
I really don't think Samantha Bee is a reliable source on this issue – at the end of the day, she is a comedian and doesn't have any expertise in the area. If we do re-introduce her segment on here (it covers a lot of topics that I can't find in RS), then they should be correctly attributed as her claims. If she refers to a study/newpaper report, then we ought to include the original, rather than just her commentary on them.
Hope this clarifies things. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't time to add it in now, but this article by Marc-André Argentino for a platform backed by King's College London seems like it could add a lot of detail to this article. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Wandered across Los Angeles Times article that includes "pastel QAnon": California’s yoga, wellness and spirituality community has a QAnon problem. Could be useful for article (I find this QAnon crazyness too depressing at moment to analyse article for content to add to Wikipedia's Pastel QAnon article.) --EarthFurst (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added these to the article (better late than never?). —AFreshStart (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pastel QAnon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: NSNW (talk · contribs) 22:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello there! I will be reviewing your nomination. This particular nomination shouldn't take very long. Personally I followed the story of qAnon very closely so I should have good knowledge of this, comments will come soon. NSNW (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments:
@AFreshStart: I may not be able to respond to comments quickly. I'm going on a trip to Washington, DC over the weekend. But I will try to respond as best I can.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNW (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC) 

That's okay, I hope you enjoy your trip! Sorry I was unable to reply to your review sooner. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


### Lead:
You need to make the lead bigger; currently all that is referenced in the lead is what Pastel QAnon means itself and who discovered it. You should put in info about some of the tactics, viewpoints, (the true meaning of "pastel" QAnon), etc.
 Done I have tried to expand the lead to give a better overview of the article. Not added any more references per WP:LEADCITE, but I know the topic is contentious so if there are any specific claims you think need citing, please let me know. Thank you for starting this review btw, I know the topic is a difficult one! —AFreshStart (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


### References
All of the references in the article are reliable except for [6], I'm not sure entirely sure the Verifability of SoundCloud as source. I may consult other editors about this. Other sources that I'm unsure about are [27] and [16]. The first one is considered a biased source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and since this is an article about a conspiracy theory I feel like a better source should be used. The second is a website that I believe is a podcast website but I may be wrong however (I have never seen this website before). Besides that the rest of the sources are excellent.
 Done I have removed the contentious sources (all of the content in the Intercept (ref. 27) source was included in the other cited source, and the SoundCloud (ref. 6) source didn't add much to the article. I think ref. 16 is reliable, as it is published by SBS World News, but I'll admit I'm no expert on that specific source so I have removed it from the article. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


### Image Review
[[1]], the link to this image directs to an archive website that displays an error [message]. This conflicts with copyright as there is no way for me to verify the source of the image. There is also no definitive author for the image. Same thing for [[2]]
That's interesting; the archived source (it is the same for both) is showing up fine for me, although it is a redirect. I've updated the URL so hopefully this helps.
The original authors of these were not given. I don't think not having a definitive author for these images matters too much, as they consist of non-copyrightable fonts and colours, and are below the below the threshold of originality (which is what I have tagged the images as on Commons) as they contain no unique images, artwork, etc. I'll admit that I am not an expert in copyright law, so I could be totally incorrect on that one. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm no expert either on copyright, but I'll assume good faith here. On the redirects, it may be because I'm using a MacBook, in particular one lended by my high school, which has website blockers, so it may have just been me. NSNW (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Follow up, I've just tired the links and they work now, thank you! NSNW (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


### Prose
There are several prose issues here.

Lorna Bracewell, a political scientist, claimed that right-wing movements that focus on protecting one's children, such as QAnon, "speak to a distinctively feminine set of anxieties and fears to mobilize a distinctively feminine species of anger". ... May want to watch "claimed", replace it with "stated".
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
This has appealed to white Republican women, in particular suburban "soccer moms". ... What's "This", explain more what it is, it breaks up the flow of the prose.
don't know --GA
It refers to "pastel qanon" itself, it's referencing what groups pastel qanon targets.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNW (talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I see, I misunderstood the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
This is also done to avoid their posts being deleted, as explicit QAnon references are banned on many social media sites. ... Again, what is "This".
don't know --GA
You can just say "Gateway messaging is also done to"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNW (talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The messages often use and expand upon existing distrust and misunderstanding of the groups targeted and positive reinforcement, ... Remove "often" (redundancy).
tried "tend to" --GA
Pastel QAnon targets several existing communities and movements which are aimed at women ... Try to work this into another paragraph, it's a one sentence paragraph like that. NSNW (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I understand it's like a summary of what follows, which could be expressed by a colon, perhaps followed by bulleted entries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I think you should just keep it in the first paragraph like it is now, I don't think a list is appropriate here.
Once these are completed the article is passable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNW (talk • contribs) 12:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC) 

per nominator's talk: I did minor changes, but don't know enough about the other two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
All the changes have been made. Congrats! I will pass the article now. NSNW (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking in the see also section, I'm not sure I understand why Queerbaiting is listed as a related topic. Are there WP:RS that discussion Pastel QAnon in conjunction with that topic? I didn't see anything in the article content that suggests a connection, especially since QAnon is a far-right political movement that isn't exactly very supportive of queer rights. aismallard (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleted as irrelevant. Dronebogus (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Theres an entire paragraph that seems to be for the most part contrary to reality, there are 4 citations at the very end of the paragraph, one of them is a book which i dont have access to, the other 3 have no relevance to a majority of the claims.
Specifically the block of text stating "Researchers have identified scandals in the food industry, concerns over additives in food and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), conflicting scientific advice on child-rearing and the U.S. opioid epidemic – all of which disproportionately affect women – a lack of investment in women's health"
Without citation the only one of these that can be reasonably fact checked as true is that child rearing disproportionately affects women (and idk, maybe the book makes these claims, though they would be inaccurate they would at least be cited)
Other than that, women are not more susceptible food additives, nor are they exposed to them more (actually likely exposed to them less due to on average eating a smaller amount of food than men),  
The most glaring absurdity in the claims in my opinion is that women are disproportionately affected by the US opioid epidemic…. Men make up around 65% of self reported opioid abusers, they make up more than 75% of opioid overdose deaths, around 90% of the people in prison for drug related offenses in the US, there is not a single metric in which the opioid epidemic effects women to a greater degree than men except for, due to lower body mass, the amount of fentanyl it would take for the average female to overdose….
As far as investment in health, a majority of research grants are not gendered, but of those that are nearly 100% is directed towards women, ORWH receives around $4 billion per year earmarked for women's health research, no such fund exists for men. An example of disparity in the opposite direction both from charitable fundraising and research grants can be seen in issues like Breast cancer getting more twice the funding as prostate cancer.

2600:1700:4678:E5D0:6445:7848:C6FA:7FE (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Garymericanoaintgotnowikipediaaccount