Talk:Jim Watkins (businessman)

2channel is not an imageboard

Due to my COI I don't want to edit the article, but I just want to make you aware of it because I just noticed it GorillaWarfare. It is a textboard. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Good catch, thanks! Fixed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: And probably the section heading should become Online anonymous communities as well. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Will change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Number of children

In his citizenship petition, published publicly in The Manila Times by a lawyer of his, (see last page) Watkins doesn't claim Ron at all, but rather another son, Sam Watkins. I think the number of his children is a matter of some debate, and we shouldn't state it as 1. What do you think, GorillaWarfare. Perhaps at least one or at least two. This is going to sound rather brash but I don't even think he knows how many there are. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed this change this morning when checking my watchlist but forgot to do anything about it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I've changed it back to list Ron Watkins by name, which is in keeping with the advice at Template:Infobox person: Typically the number of children (e.g., 3); only list names of independently notable or particularly relevant children. Names may be preceded by a number to show total children and avoid implying that named children are the only offspring. For multiple entries, use an inline list. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of living children, unless notable. I think Ron Watkins satisfies the "particularly relevant" clause as he is mentioned by name several times in this article and in reliable sourcing. There's not a great solution for the issue of accidentally implying he is the only offspring, other than maybe writing "unknown" or something similar... though that kind of falls into implying that Jim Watkins himself doesn't know how many kids he has, something we shouldn't imply in-article without a solid source. I suppose we could remove the parameter entirely and just leave Ron to be mentioned in-article, if folks think that's a better solution.

I've also restored the image caption, since I think it's helpful with images of living people to note if the image is somewhat outdated. I also added that he is known for operating 2channel as well as 8chan, and changed "owner of... 8chan and 2channel" to "operator of" since there is some question about whether he is the rightful owner of 2channel or not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Did You Know?

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 Yoninah (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Jim Watkins in 2015

• ... that some have speculated that Jim Watkins is working with "Q", the anonymous poster behind the QAnon conspiracy theory, or that Watkins himself is Q?

  Protocol: "For seasoned QAnon watchers, perhaps the biggest significance behind the unveiling of the PAC is that it seems to cement the connection between Watkins, 8Chan's owner, and the Q poster himself... 'Watkins always made it seem like there was distance between him and Q, that Q was just this guy posting on his forums, that he let Q post because he's a free speech absolutist. By launching this PAC he is fully admitting that he is working with whoever is posting as Q and he is now part of the grift that is QAnon,' said Mike Rains, a QAnon researcher who is behind the Poker and Politics Twitter feed, which follows the Qanon movement and debunks many of its claims. Argentino has studied the changes in Q's syntax, grammar and selection of topics over the past three years since the first post in 2017, and believes Watkins has been posting as Q since last fall."

  Daily Dot "There was already speculation that Q and Watkins were linked, as when 8chan went down in August 2019, the Q poster didn’t make their drops somewhere else, instead waiting around for months while 8chan found a new service provider and rebranded as 8kun."

  Playboy "'The most important change in mind-set was that I came to believe Jim and Ron do not operate 8chan in good faith but rather to twisted ends,' he says. 'Their actions continue to betray them—for example, helping QAnon post and making sure QAnon’s identity would remain stable during the transition from 8chan to 8kun, which they did for no one else.'"

  The Atlantic "Fredrick Brennan’s theory is that Jim and his son Ron, who is the site’s administrator, knew 8kun needed Q to attract users. 'I definitely, definitely, 100 percent believe that Q either knows Jim or Ron Watkins, or was hired by Jim or Ron Watkins,' Brennan told me.... Every faction of QAnon has its own hunches, alliances, and interpersonal dramas related to the question of Q’s identity. The theories fit into three broad groups.... This second category includes Brennan’s idea that the Watkinses are now paying Q, or are paying someone to carry on as Q, or are even acting as Q themselves."

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sylvester–Gallai theorem

• Comment: There is another potential hook in this article about 2channel, but because the article on 2channel was just so recently featured in DYK I didn't suggest it. Sorry this is a little bit late—I had heard there was a news story to be published about Watkins soon that might make for some quality sourcing, but it seems it hasn't yet come out.

Created by GorillaWarfare (talk). Self-nominated at 19:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC).

• This interesting article has been nominated two days late, but I think we can overlook that. It is plenty long enough. The image is suitably licensed, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Business Owner?

It states he owns many businesses in the Philippines? How? Is he Filipino? Only Filipinos can own a business. And since he is about to be banned from ever entering the country, he cannot be a citizen.120.29.109.137 (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I know very little about business ownership laws in the Philippines, but The Washington Post describes his various businesses in this article. The businesses (and the source) predate his immigration issues; I am not sure if anything has changed as a result of that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, he has applied for citizenship. But clearly never attained it, as they are blacklisting him as an undesirable alien. Only citizens can own businesses here. So his immigration issues have nothing to do with anything in that regards. I am a Permanent Resident Immigrant of 13 years, and I cannot own a business here at all. I can't even sell soup at my house, or I risk arrest and lifetime ban.120.29.109.137 (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: (I have a COI.) 120.29.109.137 is right. All of Watkins' businesses were actually owned by proxies—usually his wife Liziel, with him having a 40% stake. However, he was Chairman of the Board on all of his businesses, and Liziel's title was “Corporate Secretary”…in practice, Liziel had little to no say in how the businesses operated, with the most say of hers being in the café and pig farm, but even then, her say was limited. In terms of the most valuable properties, such as especially 5channel, but also 8chan, the domains were all hosted overseas and registered as being owned by US corporations—meaning, that if Liziel were to become a hostile shareholder, she couldn't actually assert property claims, Jim could just change the domain record. However, with all this said, given Watkins' departure from the Philippines, a lot of this is now moot. All the businesses have closed. I would recommend that you add a [sic] tag after Emerald Pedistal, though, because an editor in good faith may think that this is a misspelling. It is, but on purpose: Watkins thought it would stymie lawsuits, the name is actually Pedistal and not Pedestal, and it was a holding company for his in-country assets like the pig farm and café, but also his condos (it threatened to sue me for alleged damage, which I ignored). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This is fascinating insight, though do you know if it's published in RS anywhere? I've added {{not a typo}} for "Pedistal"—I don't think we normally use {{sic}} outside of quotes. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I doubt there'd be any citations for this specific information, only general information about Philippine law and how some expatriates use their wives to circumvent it, but nothing specific to Watkins. However, given he wasn't a citizen, seems WP:COMMONSENSE it's talking about him. The Manila Times citizenship petition also contains some information about his business holdings at that time. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 23:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording a bit per this conversation, but we'd definitely need some sourcing to actually make statements about ownership status. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Honestly, that's the best you can do, besides perhaps a much abridged version of this: The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines contains many restrictions on foreign ownership of property in its Article 7, §11, limiting it to "sixty per centum" in favor of Filipino citizens and corporations owned by them. While the Congress of the Philippines has carved out limited exceptions such as for POGOs, the country is considered as having the most restrictive environment for foreign investment in Southeast Asia, only sometimes considered ahead of communist Vietnam; even lawyers attempting to remain on the right side of the law have fallen afoul of this, such as in the famous cases involving Rappler Inc.[1][2] Honestly, I'm now considering writing an article like History of foreign property ownership in the Philippines. Worthwhile, notable topic, you think? Please help w/naming the article if you've time as well〜 Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Silly me, after writing this I found Philippine investment climate. Gotta say, I'm a fan of the article title, but I don't like that it's so anti-historical, as if it's supposed to reflect the current climate and not how we got here, i.e. reactionary push back against former colonizers (basically opposite of what Singapore did). Maybe History of Philippine foreign investment? We also have a series of articles like Foreign direct investment in X, e.g. Foreign direct investment in China & Foreign direct investment in India, possibly a candidate. Gah, so many choices!! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggest reordering of lead

@GorillaWarfare: (I have a COI.) I suggest reordering these two sentences in the lead:

He began providing domain and hosting services to 8chan in 2014, and became the site's official owner and operator the same year.^[2] Watkins became the operator of 2channel after he seized it in 2014 from its creator and original owner, Hiroyuki Nishimura.^[3][4]

to read instead (new words bolded):

In February 2014, Watkins became the operator of 2channel after he seized it from its creator and original owner, Hiroyuki Nishimura.^[3][4] He began providing domain and hosting services to 8chan later that year, and became the site's official owner and operator by year's end.^[2]

I think that chronological sorting is better. This is more up to you or any other interested editor, but I'd also suggest putting § 2channel above § 8chan in § Online anonymous communities for the same reason. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Those suggestions all make sense to me, implemented. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"Watkins or his son"

I recently came across this article in the NYT, which covers two studies by forensic linguists who conclude that it's his son Ron Watkins who took over as Qanon, not Jim Watkins. Given that the NYT quotes several other experts who express confidence in the linguists' methodology. I think we should reframe the QAnon section around his support and promotion of Qanon, and trim the speculation that floated around before this study was published. DFlhb (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog: regarding this edit, the source does say that Jim Watkins is "widely believed to be behind QAnon", but it doesn't say he's believed to be QAnon based on "considerable linguistic and forensic evidence" and his "seeming admission in an HBO documentary".

The source says: Despite considerable linguistic and forensic evidence to the contrary—as well as a seeming admission in an HBO documentary—Watkins has continued to deny that he or his son, Ron, are behind the QAnon conspiracy. i.e. it lumps both Watkinses together in a slightly contorted sentence. But both of the pieces of evidence are about Ron Watkins, not Jim Watkins. The forensic linguistic evidence is about the son (linked above), and the HBO admission is also from the son (see here). DFlhb (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb OK, I guess I should thank you for a good eye. Do you want me to delete the "considerable etc.? Louis P. Boog (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue is how to reframe that whole section. "Widely believed" was clearly true and should be covered, but I think it should be reframed in past tense, since the forensic linguist teams have since looked at both the son and father and concluded it was the son with 93% and 99% accuracy. I'd skip the Skeptical Inquirer source entirely since it uses present tense rather than past tense. DFlhb (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb I kept the George Soros accusation although it may need some context. Louis P. Boog (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Good idea to keep that bit; I added context from that same piece — DFlhb (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)