Talk:TrueAnon

A fact from TrueAnon appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 May 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that TrueAnon bills itself as "the only non-pedophile podcast"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/TrueAnon.

Wikipedia

Podcasting Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[5G#Criticism|Tower of Terror]] The anchor (#Criticism) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the podcast TrueAnon uses the Jeffrey Epstein case as a lens to examine "larger class antagonisms within the United States"? Source: Rolling Stone
- ALT1:... that TrueAnon bills itself as "the only non-pedophile podcast"? Source: iTunes

Reviewed: Mahākāśyapa

Converted from a redirect by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Image in article is fair use. QPQ done.
ALT0 is verified and cited inline. I like ALT1 better for its brevity, but I'm concerned that the quote leaves off the rest of the logo: The only non-pedophile podcast focused on uncovering the truth of the Epstein conspiracy. What do you think? Perhaps add something after the quote, like: "the only non-pedophile podcast" to examine the ramifications of the Jeffrey Epstein case? Yoninah (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: I think to over-explain it obfuscates the intentionally comedic nature of the podcast's tagline, i.e. that as the "only" anti-pedophile podcast, every other podcast is a "pro-pedophile" podcast. If you'd prefer a hook that talks about how the podcast examines the Epstein case, ALT0 or some variant of it is probably better. Morgan695 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I like ALT1. It doesn't have to say everything if it's trying to be hooky. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hosts, who identify as Marxists[edit]

The provided citation doesn't provide evidence that they identify as Marxists. The source itself identifies them as Marxists, with no confirmation that they agree. There should be a better citation for such a charged claim. (I am completely unfamiliar with these people, so perhaps it's well known and they embrace the label, in which case it should be quite easy to properly cite.)DoctorCaligari (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s well known and spoken about in their podcast(which we can’t source on Wikipedia). It’s completely fine to be in the article as it’s substantiated by both the quoted source, content of the podcast, and the words of the hosts. The only one allowed to be used as source is the article linked, under WK:RS GonzoTribune (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]