Talk:Romana Didulo

Previous version and concurrent draft

Hello! I see @Daniel deleted a previous version of the article (not by me) last year. The topic's exposure has increased considerably since July 2021, I believe it meets notability criteria hands down now.

Also, someone else is working on a draft for this - apologies to those hard-working editors. I invite you to revise my work and modify it accordingly. With my draft ready, I felt it was appropriate to post. Robincantin (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Romana Didulo Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Tagging @Ipnsaepl28, @CT55555, @WanukeX who worked on that article in the review process. Robincantin (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The subject has certainly become notable in my opinion. I almost accidentally also started a draft. So there's two versions. I think we should just take what's good from the draft and put it into the existing one and all is good. Right? CT55555 (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely CT55555 (talk), anything that's good should make its way into the version that's online. Robincantin (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

And I agree it was appropriate to post it, she is so clearly notable. I felt the current one going through AfC wasn't necessary, but someone else submitting it and I didn't want to interrupt. CT55555 (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted. The deletion discussion more than a year ago was about lack of notability, which made sense at the time - the only comment was that creating an unregistered political party was insufficient. Since then the topic became a major QAnon-adjacent influencer in Canada, with significant news coverage and numerous disruptive actions, attracting the attention of law enforcement and cult dynamics experts. Robincantin (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources

Noteworthy, there are two episodes from QAnon Anonymous covering Didulo, which maybe useful to refer to, or even as a full citation:

• https://soundcloud.com/qanonanonymous/episode-157-the-secret-qanon-queen-of-canada-feat-mack-lamoureux
• https://www.patreon.com/posts/premium-episode-71226727 (premium episode, requires Patreon subscription)

Additionally there is https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanon-queens-followers-are-sending-insane-anti-vaxx-notes-to-hospitals from the Daily Beast, but it's an older article and I don't think it has anything the other sources don't. aismallard (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

aismallard (talk), what do we think of using a podcast as a source? I've refrained from doing so, since podcasts or blogs don't benefit from editorial oversight and fact-checking. Robincantin (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Robincantin: Of course podcasts differ widely in quality, and generally they are considered WP:SPS and not allowed. However QAA is generally considered reliable and does consistently quality reporting, and they associate with many different journalists who themselves produce definitely RS-quality work. So I feel that using QAA as a citation for QAnon-related information is acceptable. aismallard (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Aismallard:, that's going to be an interesting source to look into and to use, with the usual caution. Robincantin (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Beast should be used with caution WP:DAILYBEAST and I think extra caution on this topic.

Podcasts also I think need extreme caution. Although I do use them as sources when they are news podcasts with journalistic integrity, I think this is a tiny minority of podcasts. Again, I think this topic requires extra care. CT55555 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree it requires caution. Because the WP:DAILYBEAST article already covered similar ground I linked it instead of using it as a source.

For podcasts I agree it is something to be careful with, as it is pretty rare for them to have the required journalistic integrity. aismallard (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

News article which could be usable as a source for an added sentence or two: https://www.vice.com/en/article/epvgdp/romana-didulo-qanon-queen-printing-currency ("The QAnon Queen Is Printing Her Own Currency Now"). aismallard (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed! I'll take care of it tonight unless somebody beats me to it. Robincantin (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Lamoureux' explanation of what Canadian Tire money is got a giggle out of me. Robincantin (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Ideas for expansion

I think one good next part of the article to expand is her travels around Canada. She has been traveling across the country in RVs with loyal followers and has been involved in several incidents, including some where her then-loyal followers were abandoned by her or left. Some of these events are mentioned in RS already cited on the page, but her travels across Canada haven't been touched on yet. aismallard (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I hesitate to go that route, it often looks too much like a chronicle - On this date, they did this, on that date she said that - and you end up with a mess of anecdotes after four months, which somebody has to summarize in one or two paragraphs.

I understand she has a truck now, are the RVs still around?Robincantin (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

There has been some reporting about her financials and use of fraud to enrich herself, this could get a paragraph or two in the article. [1] aismallard (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Pretender vs False Pretender

Since my edit has been reverted I will make my argument here. This person should be designated as a 'false pretender' as she has no legitimate claim at all to any of the royal positions she has claimed (The nuance is explained on the pretender page). In this instance the word 'pretender' is not neutral as the implication is that there is some legal justification for their claim. Wilson (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. I was wrong to revert. Sorry about that. CT55555(talk) 03:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"Cult leader" though? A couple of sources mention experts saying the way she's carrying on has some characteristics normally attributed to cults, I don't remember any of them saying straight up she's leading a cult. I think listing that in Occupation is pushing it. Also "Occupation" should come from the lead. Robincantin (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view on this, but lean towards agreeing with you @Robincantin CT55555(talk) 15:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

@Kawnhr has twice now deleted the infobox. It contains useful information and identifies clearly that the claims are not legitimate. I think you should have followed WP:BRD cycle and seek consensus to delete, after being reverted the first time. I have now reverted a second time. Nonetheless, asking for community input to support my reverts. CT55555(talk) 06:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I maintain that the infobox is not adding anything to this page.

For starters, using Template:Infobox officeholder is incorrect. These "offices" are not real, and infobox officeholder is meant only for notable offices — not for literally any role or position a person has (or claims to have). Since Didulo's claims are not an office, it shouldn't be shown in the infobox. Steve Ballmer doesn't get the office parameter to show his tenure as Microsoft CEO or his ownership of the Clippers. Nor do other false pretenders — Kaspar Hauser, Thomas the Slav, Yemelyan Pugachev, Lambert Simnel — have their claims in their infobox. An argument could be made if there were predecessors or successors, with the box serving as a navigational aid — but there are no such people or links. At the very least, Didulo should be using Template:Infobox person.

But once you remove those "offices", what's left? Her name, birth place, political party and occupation. None of this requires an infobox. Her name and occupation are both adequately covered by the lede paragraph. Her political party is an unofficial one that is her own vanity project, so hardly anything important to note (it also does not have, and is unlikely to have, a page of its own, so it's not providing navigational aid). Birth place was just added, and while that's the sort of thing that an infobox is for, all we have here is a country, which isn't much help. We also do not have information such as age, education, partner, relatives or any of the other things that normally get shoved in an infobox. The fact of the matter is that we don't have many biographical details about Didulo at all — so what's the point of an infobox that says so little? — Kawnhr (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I did some work before replying. It's interesting to note it is not an official party (source) and if that means we should not use an office holder infobox, I'm neutral on that, I don't know if we use infoboxes based on officialness of things, or notability of things. If you changed to infobox person, I would not object.

I did see that an archive of the party website include missing biographical data, which I've added in, making the usefulness of information in the box greater.

In summary, I don't object to changing the infobox. I do think it is a helpful thing to have, and I wonder if you reconsider now that I added more info to it? CT55555(talk) 20:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

After your work on it, I'm much more satisfied with the infobox. I still think the offices shouldn't be there, though; since you mentioned being OK with it, I'm going to convert it to Infobox person. Sorry for being a bit bullish on this, you've definitely improved the page. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for being open minded to reconsider. I remain neutral on which infobox, so certainly no objections from me to change it. CT55555(talk) 21:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we're good now :) That infobox was starting to bother me. Robincantin (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Notability template

@Plantduets, do you wish to elaborate on your addition of a notability template beyond "It is this editor's opinion that this article should not exist as it poses a threat to common sense."? The article is clearly supported by significant coverage of reliable sources independent of the subject. The sources range over 2.5 years. Her views are certainly fringe, but the article deals with her actions (and her supporters'), not her beliefs. Robincantin (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robincantin The presence of this Wikipedia article could potentially bolster support for her dangerous, hateful, and harmful beliefs. Its very existence will further reinforce the validity of her radical beliefs, regardless of whether they're expounded upon or not. That being said, I've decided to revert my edit because frankly this isn't a hill I'm willing to die on. Plantduets (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Plantduets Cheers, thank you. Hopefully people reading the article after googling her name find the information they need and decide to have nothing to do with her. I suspect the people of Ramsack and Rickmound found it useful. Robincantin (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)