![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
NOTAFORUM
|
---|
This article is incredibly biased. I'm tired of seeing articles on political topics, that aren't left-leaning, being labelled as far right. This movement is only far-right, if your viewpoint originates from the far-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnedresponsibility ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
First time reading this article and I agree it is very biased. First off, the statement that Qanon's accusations of liberal Hollywood celebrities, politicians, etc. are false should be considered "weasel words" at worst. Documentation, please, that you have proven Qanon's accusations to be FALSE. It's not false just because you can't find evidence that it isn't. Knock it off and get back to being like a real encyclopedia. Write such a statement as an objective, not as a biased opinion. I miss it when biased statements like that used to be removed or corrected. Now they just get left in an article. This is why Wikipedia is imploding on itself and can't find enough donors (I stopped donating several years ago). What, it's ok to make a statement like that without citation, when it fits the agenda? Who are we trying to protect here, really? 66.227.209.60 ( talk) 02:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
|
WP:NOTHERE |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article in its current state does not display a /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Changes made to reflect a more neutral position with less unsubstantiated accusations (use of words like "hostile") resulted in a level of protection being given to this article so ordinary users can no longer edit it. This leaves the content of the article, which is again mentioned to be of the NON-NETURAL variety, subject to whatever "wikipedia editors" desire. Users are ANGRY about this and cannot TRUST editors to offer a NEUTRAL point of view because of the elevation of protection when the article is attempted to be corrected. It is frustrating hearing others tell me they cannot trust Wikipedia anymore because of behaviors like this. Unforutantely, most do not further to the talk page and will not see the reality of this situation. Therefore, I serve this message as both a REQUEST for users to allow them to edit the page as wikipedia normally functions - and a WARNING of the rapid trust that is being lost in WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowman2333 ( talk • contribs) 07:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Please note this is NOT OKAY and has resulted in many ANGRY USERS. Wikipedia is supposed to be an UNBIAS source. The public perception has shifted heavily and it does not look good for Wikipedia! AGAIN, I serve this message as both a REQUEST for users to allow them to edit the page as wikipedia normally functions - and a WARNING of the rapid trust that is being lost in WIKIPEDIA. Thanks! ( Cowman2333) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ian and welcome! Feel free to take whatever actions you like! Will you have the COURAGE to leave this log of evidence of your BIAS up though? Will you SILENCE users when they have the COURAGE to call you out? Are you interested in FACTS? I have been with Wikipedia for 7 years - check my page. This behavior displayed here is NOT good. Cowman2333 ( talk) 23:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Note how you are still arguing the legitimacy of qanon EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NOT EVEN DISPUTED THAT. I have only coming here asking for the article to be presented up to wikipedia's standards as they once were - neutral! What does that say about your own personal convictions? The users see it for what it is! Cowman2333 ( talk) 23:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC) |
I have requested semi-protection for the article as the result of the latest round of edits. Adelsheim ( talk) 08:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Q never accused Tom hanks, Sarah Ruth Ashcraft did on her twitter page. 2A01:E35:243D:A300:FDA0:8EF9:95E6:DEA8 ( talk) 18:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This Article fool of falsehoods which cite sources and opinions and not facts Trollmoleneutral ( talk) 03:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi I respectfully request that you change the introductory phrase from "QAnon is a conspiracy theory" to "QAnon literally means 'Q Anonymous' which refers to either an anonymous person/persons who are currently members of a discord bulletin board known as 8-Chan" [end of recommended change to your opening phrase]
The reason why I request this change is to transmit true grammatical context to the actual noun 'QAnon', so as to prevent descriptive bias from influencing a 1st time readers 'opinion' about the term, prior to establishing context (yet to be explained) <-- It is grammatically misleading to insert adjective bias to the introductory description of the noun (the post predicate explanation of the term is heavily weighted with opinion rather than descriptive context).
Kind regards, Tbtheonly. Tbtheonly ( talk) 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Wikipedia summarizes
reliable sources. Those sources overwhelmingly describe this as a conspiracy theory, and consistently emphasize the total lack of compelling evidence for QAnon's claims. Intentionally allowing people to come to false or unsupported conclusions would be fundamentally opposed to our goals as an encyclopedia. There are also other problems with this proposal, such as that
8chan and
Discord are completely separate.
Grayfell (
talk)
21:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)I have to agree with TBtheonly on their suggested edit. The definition of QAnon makes far more sense than the emotive language of "conspiracy theory". At the very least, the definition of QAnon should be the leading sentence, then you can say something like "QAnon is thought of as a "conspiracy theory" by many sources (I would leave out the reliable part - even that is now diluted and in question, unless you want to name your "reliable" sources!) Angelor2000 ( talk) 17:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)angelor2000
4chan is moderated, contrary to what the article states. That is, after all, why Qanon moved to 8chan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8102:4C12:CDEC:FCE5:EDE3:77FC ( talk) 09:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In paragraph 1, the term "falsely accused" should be changed to "accused". 99wgornicki99 ( talk) 17:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the word "CONSPIRACY" that word only applies to something that can't be proven. Like the word "THEORY" Everything 'Q' puts out are fact and are proven to be fact day after day. 63.96.234.27 ( talk) 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The extended-confirmed protection of QAnon ends later tonight (00:54 GMT on September 22, 2018). Considering the considerable following it appears to have garnered over the summer, and its purveyors' tendencies to organize off-wiki to influence the article, I think we should probably brace ourselves. Adelsheim ( talk) 18:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
They cover post-1932 American politics and biographies of living or recently decease persons. Let me know if more is needed, eg 1RR. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Just so you're aware of off-Wiki organizing to influence this articl [1] [2]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
We can now add the QAnon campaign has fuelled (sorry, did not meant to use cruel irony) the delirium of the suspected arsonist charged for the Holy Fire. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/forrest-gordon-accused-arson-california-fire-conspiracy-theorist-710023/ Balayka ( Balayka) 18:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Found another QAnon-related incident. Seems significant enough. Adelsheim ( talk) 15:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
This article does not reflect Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. It is filled with weasel words and does not give a balanced view of the subject. Since the author has locked the page, again showing their biased view point, we are unable to contest the neutrality of this page with a tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C001:28C5:9119:D26F:59A4:1D1D ( talk) 16:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "See also", "Nudge theory" should be removed as it completely unrelated to the QAnon conspiracy. The text throughout the page does not refer in any way to "Nudge theory". LouisNolin ( talk) 20:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Hhkohh (
talk)
12:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)I consider it highly unlikely Pence had known of the guy with the Q patch before their fleeting encounter that just happened to be captured in a photo. IMO the photo creates a dubious impression Pence associates with Q people or endorses their views. I suggest the photo be removed. soibangla ( talk) 22:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory was initially promoted by Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi,[9] but in May 2018 Right Wing Watch reported that Jones and Corsi had ceased to support QAnon, declaring the source to now be "completely compromised".[13]
This first part of this statement is categorically false and the source is unsubstantiated. Q started in 4chan /pol months prior to any popular conspiracy shows ever mentioning or reporting on it. The second part detailing their objection in any support of Q is accurate. This correction is made with no political/economic bias, but providing pure truth. Suggestion for improvement would be just to remove the first error, something like this-
Right Wing Watch reported on May 2018 that Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi had ceased to support QAnon, declaring the source to now be "completely compromised".[13]
Or given the pure political bias of the source, remove it entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.229.138.205 ( talk) 04:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
CONCERN: I believe the 24% statistic cited from the Washington Post poll is incorrect. The 24 from the poll is a temperature metric indicating negative sentiment. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/30/the-qanon-conspiracy-movement-is-very-unpopular-our-new-poll-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b15592a1956e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.67.165 ( talk) 10:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I will no longer contribute financially to Wikipedia until the biased nature of this reporting has the stigmatism of "conspiracy theory" removed from the Q movement. The use of this term is clearly a hypocritical one and needs serious consideration by all Wikipedia readers. A "theory" is something that does not exist. Conspiracies take place every day. Calling Q followers "conspiracy theorists" is like saying anyone who follows the #METOO or #WOMENSRIGHTS or any other positively motivated movement is nothing but conspiracy theorists. Remove your opined inclusion of this false term or forever be labeled what many, many people have exclaimed before... that Wikipedia is not a trusted source for information. Questions? emailbullock@gmail. 107.139.73.142 ( talk) 15:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Why are we avoiding the term "conspiracy thoery" and instead using the "movement" euphemism? Our sources all call it a conspiracy theory, we should stick to that. — Strongjam ( talk) 01:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Buzzfeed published an article [6] today with the title "It's Looking Extremely Likely That QAnon Is A Leftist Prank On Trump Supporters." Should a section or subsection of the article be included to document reportage of hoax potential? Siberian Husky ( talk) 18:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I found this article not to be definitive enough about the beliefs of this group, so I will attempt to clarify it:
The deepest held beliefs of Q-anon are simply, in a quote paraphrasing the late Isaac Asimov:
"My ignorance is better than your knowledge."
It is an anti-intellectual movement that is anti-science, anti-global warming, pro-home religious schooling, and prone to promulgate almost any political conspiracy theory they see as furthering this agenda or otherwise disruptive of an educational system that teaches much of anything useful to society. As the above quote would indicate, in areas other than fundamentalist or extremist religion, the followers of Q-anon are stupid to a fault, and like other religious fundamentalist causes, view mobile communications technology and associated with social networking and propaganda dissemination as a means to an end ordained by their God.
Fundamentalist religious organizations like Q-anon believe that the science that gave humanity the miracle of flight or the engineering skills to build skyscrapers so that planes carrying innocent passengers could be flown into the side of tall buildings that are not houses of worship. The Q-anon movement should be considered armed and dangerous for exactly this reason.
Recently the Q-anon movement has been pro-Trump, but one should not expect that it will remain politically aligned with anyone who has shown any indication that they will listen or align themselves politically for reasons not related to the interests of fundamentalist religion in the Bible Belt of the United States. Danshawen ( talk)danshawen —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't want to list the page to give it any extra attention, but if you check the history you'll see IP addresses and throwaway accounts trying to add the page. To avoid having to semiprotect the page just over that, perhaps an admin can add the site to the global spam blacklist? Gatemansgc ( TɅ̊LK) 16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: a presumably American[8] individual that may have later grown to include multiple individuals, To: an alleged American individual, that may have later joined forces with other individuals, all claiming... AlphaWren ( talk) 05:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.In the second paragraph, it says, "The conspiracy theory, mainly popularized by supporters of President Trump under the names The Storm and The Great Awakening, has been widely characterized as...", given how close the election was, can we give a little more credit to the number of supporters President Trump has? Granted, Trump's base is not known to be as actively involved in the majority of mainstream news sources as Trump's detractors, but Trump's base is by no means small, and the tone of this article makes it seem as though the people paying attention to QAnon is a tiny minority of Americans. To fix this, I propose changing the sentence to say, "has been characterized as...", (removing the word "widely"), or to say "has been widely characterized by its detractors as...".
The above argument in mind... In the first paragraph, where it says, "The user has falsely accused numerous liberal Hollywood actors...", although there is a lack of evidence for the accusations, the accusations received no small amount of attention, and given that there hasn't been a formal investigation into the claims, shouldn't we remove the word "falsely" from that, since it presupposes a conclusion with which a significant number of people disagree?
Epistemologically, we have two groups here. One group thinks Q is legit, another doesn't. Both groups believe they are privy to sufficient evidence that they suppose their views are not refutable (as with nearly every argued point of view). Apparently, neither group is able to fully convince the other; so without that kind of closure, it's unfair to suppose that your "unsupported refutation" is any better than Q's "unsupported accusation". And, in general, it's not rational to out any claim, no matter how unlikely it seems, unless there is evidence against it. For example, there's lots of evidence supporting the current theories about origin of life and evolution, but it's still called a "theory" because it's not proven; and although the probability of life evolving to its current complexity on on earth within the geologically evident timeframe is quite low, nobody's putting "false" in front of claims on Darwin's wiki. Without getting too sidetracked, what I'm saying is, if a sufficient number of people hold to an opinion, that opinion should be treated as potentially credible unless objectively proven otherwise, regardless of the weight of probability against it. 63.255.126.132 ( talk) 23:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Is it really a "far right" conspiracy theory? The only source we have is splcenter and I highly doubt that's a neutral source. Also, if 50% of floridians heard of QAnon and 25% support it, is wikipedia saying that 25% of floridians are "far right"? Something does not add up. i think there is a tendency to smear political opponents as "far right" and that's fine, just not on wikipedia. i think it should be changed to "ring wing" or something like that because it's not just some fringe group of people who accept it. PumpkinGoo ( talk) 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"Southern Poverty Law Center" is neutral? Really? -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 01:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC) 24% Floridians surely not "far right". -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 01:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
58% of Floridians are familiar enough with QAnon to have an opinion about it, among whom gave a poor average rating of only 24 (range 0 to 100) of the conspiracy theory.Here is an article on FoxNews.com; saying
they are members of the fringe, right-wing group QAnon which believes in massive conspiracies. StrayBolt ( talk) 17:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
A protected page? So we can't correct what's wrong. We're all finding out that this "conspiracy theories" are true. Let's open the page for correction. Palatable ( talk) 19:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
dead links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.237.88 ( talk) 08:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The reference section has an empty 'Citations' subheading, then all of the citations appear under the 'Tweets' subheading. JezGrove ( talk) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
This has to be about the 10th Wikipedia article I've looked at in the past few weeks beginning with "X is a far right etc..."
This is a serious problem that apparently no one at Wikipedia seems concerned about.
Left and Far-Left activists, media outlets and organizations are engaging the tactic of labeling anything and everything they disagree with 'Far-Right' and 'Alt-Right.' They have been doing this for the last few years. In case you need it spelling out for you, Wikipedia: LEFT AND FAR-LEFT WEBSITES THAT ENGAGE IN THIS TACTIC ARE NOT 'RELIABLE SOURCES' AND CERTAINLY NOT EVIDENCE OF YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT SOMETHING IS FAR-RIGHT.
This has to be the most reckless form of it considering that the 'QANON HUB' site specifically states on its homepage that Q-anon is not partisan, is for everyone both Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, Liberal or Conservative who love America.
So it would seem that it is Wikipedia's view that loving America is a Far-Right viewpoint.
It's amazing that it's come to this.
Can someone at Wikipedia give me an example of something that is moderately Right? Something that is Center-Right or moderately Right Wing? Because it seems that literally every article on things that even slightly Right of Center (and even Left of Center) are declared 'Far-Right' in the opening sentence. It literally makes no sense for this many 'Far-Right' people and organizations to exist because if they did Far-Right would be a mainstream view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Des22z ( talk • contribs)
Can someone at Wikipedia give me an example of something that is moderately Right? Something that is Center-Right or moderately Right Wing?
inaccurate or disingenuous information about "The FBI" lable. It was a field office and not hea Quillpusher007 ( talk) 02:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
QAnon refers to the person espousing the conspiracy theories, not the actual theory itself. 'Anon' is a 2nd person pronoun for any anonymous user. Referring to the "theory" as QAnon sounds stupid and hurts the page's credibility. 89.101.120.203 ( talk) 13:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like a review of this material, there is a "Far right" claim and I am far from far right. QAnon has done nothing but tell me to think for myself and research for myself. I have and I see the BIAS is wide and far. 68.147.180.114 ( talk) 03:43, 12 September 2019 (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.
I think the section title says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pperrin uk ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."... maybe you could reflect on this? Pperrin uk ( talk) 21:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There seems to be much confusion either accidental or intentional when information pertaining to Qanon is concerned. On George W Bush’s Wiki page you will notice that the white supremacists who loved him for invading the Middle East aren’t listed each time they commits a crime against a Muslim. Unclefuzzydix ( talk) 04:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the article would be better off calling QAnon a "conspiracy theorist", albeit an unknown identity one, rather than a conspiracy theory, aka better English. Alex Jones is described as a conspiracy THEORIST, not theory. A person isn't a theory even if we don't know who they are. If I am missing something please let me know. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. ( talk) 20:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: ... has been characterized as "baseless",[17][18][19] "unhinged",[20] and "evidence-free".[21]
to
has been characterized as "baseless",[17][18][19] "unhinged",[20] and "evidence-free"[21] by news outlets.
[their voice should matter, but they are just opinions nonetheless and should hence be identified AS "someone" (news outlets).] 84.52.226.62 ( talk) 03:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Source 24 is to a self-identified opinion article. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not opinions. Likewise source 2 links to Southern Poverty Center, an expressly political organization which exists, as the main page of their website expressly states, to "battle racial and social injustice." https://www.splcenter.org/ They are not a reliable source just as a right-wing activist website would not be. Citation 10's headline "The Storm is the New Pizzagate - Only Worse" contains loaded language. It is clearly not objective. Likewise with source 13, "As QAnon Goes Mainstream, Trump's Rallies Are Turning Darker." Citation 23 links to a self-identified "perspective" article, there defined as "Discussion of News Politics with a point of view," i.e. an opinion article. Citing opinion blogs just because they are published by powerful organizations instead of individuals does not make them anything more than online opinion blogs. These citations should be removed. Electro blob ( talk) 18:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Quote: "In particular, the goal of the Wikipedia is to produce the best encyclopedia encapsulating the sum total of human knowledge.... [It] offers the possibility of everything being written into history, with all of mankind sharing knowledge and information in a way that enables everyone to profit from it." — Wikipedia:Testimonials
Probably I should just keep quiet, but this is a pet peeve of mine. First, I don't support QAnon or know anything much about it at all. I don't think for a moment that it's true, nor should we suggest that it is. But surely the "facts" that a wikipedia page should be reporting is that reliable sources SAY that X is a conspiracy theory, that they report that Y is baseless, unhinged, whatever - mot that "X is a conspiracy theory". Personal opinions aside, why is it Wikipedias job to make judgement calls and decide that something that many people beleive IS false? You could do the same to any religion; none are supported by evidence. You should report what the sources say, not give judgment on whether the sources are correct and which side is right. I'm not saying it should be given undue weight or whatever. You needn't include "the other side" from unreliable sources, for example. I just think it's not wikipedias place to chose the facts, merely to tell people what OTHER, reliable sources SAY is fact. By telling them "this is what the sources say". They can judge for themselves. This is basically what we do already, but when you write it as "X IS Y" people read it differently from "according to A, evidence shows X is Y" I've brought this up on other pages as well, don't know if has ever made the slightest difference. It feels to me like saying "Christianity is a myth and conspiracy theory, a baseless and evidence-free delusion", or something like that. Maybe that is what Wikipedia says. I don't know. You can certainly find plenty of sources that will say so, but why is it Wikipedia's job to make that call? The FACT is that many people say it's bunk, and that many people beleive it regardless. Anything more is either just putting their words onto Wikipedia as Truth or putting your own personal opinion, no matter how convinced you may be. This is not the same as pretending it's valid, it's just a matter of changing "it IS a conspiracy" to "an alleged conspiracy". Or whatever. Because as far as I'm concerned that's as far as wikipedia should go, on anything of this nature. That is all.
Idumea47b (
talk)
21:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Can we remove Trump's quote from the "Identity of Q" section? He was referring to the Anonymous New York Times author from 2018/
https://www.mediaite.com/trump/my-peter-trump-trade-advisor-peter-navarro-is-reportedly-hunting-anonymous/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.48.211 ( talk) 16:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we remove the line at the bottom of the 'Identity of Q' section? Trump was being asked about who the Anonymous New York Times author was, not about QAnon. https://twitter.com/johnrobertsFox/status/1227666863678803968
Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office on February 11, 2020, President Trump was asked if he knew who "anonymous" is. He replied, "I don’t want to say, but you’d be surprised."[55] BearFish56 ( talk) 17:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Q has falsely accused numerous liberal Hollywood actors, Democratic politicians, and high-ranking officials of engaging in an international child sex trafficking ring, "
Claims missing citation.
Making claims at the first-half of a complex sentence doesn't absolve the need for citation.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Citation_needed Mildsaucewiki ( talk) 01:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
It says:
Harassment of Jim Acosta
At a Trump rally in Tampa, Florida on July 31, 2018, Trump supporters exhibited hostile behavior toward CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta. Exponents of QAnon-related theories were at the rally.[106]
First, you don't know that everyone who attended the rally was a Trump supporter. Some people could have been simple attendees.
Second, it should be "some", unless you're saying that every Trump supporter there exhibited hostile behavior.
Third -- and, most egregiously -- without any warrant, you connect the crowd's "hostile [according to whose judgment?] behavior" towards C. N. N.'s Acosta with "[e]xponents" of "QAnon-related [?] theories" who were also there. How do you classify, "QAnon-related"? How do you know QAnon-related theorists were there? Also, where is your evidence that such people also exhibited hostile behavior towards Acosta?
All of these points need, I think, clarification. If you can prove or source them -- fine. Otherwise, they look to me like bias. Mwidunn ( talk) 05:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)mwidunn
Not a general forum for discussion of the political spectrum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
EDIT - After responding to the replies my initial post received, it appears Wikipedia has deleted the entire conversation. Luckily, I saved it to a txt file because I suspected something like this would happen, so I'm posting the entire conversation here. This has to be about the 10th Wikipedia article I've looked at in the past few weeks beginning with "X is a far right etc..." This is a serious problem that apparently no one at Wikipedia seems concerned about. Left and Far-Left activists, media outlets and organizations are engaging the tactic of labeling anything and everything they disagree with 'Far-Right' and 'Alt-Right.' They have been doing this for the last few years. In case you need it spelling out for you, Wikipedia: LEFT AND FAR-LEFT WEBSITES THAT ENGAGE IN THIS TACTIC ARE NOT 'RELIABLE SOURCES' AND CERTAINLY NOT EVIDENCE OF YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT SOMETHING IS FAR-RIGHT. This has to be the most reckless form of it considering that the 'QANON HUB' site specifically states on its homepage that Q-anon is not partisan, is for everyone both Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, Liberal or Conservative who love America. So it would seem that it is Wikipedia's view that loving America is a Far-Right viewpoint. It's amazing that it's come to this. Can someone at Wikipedia give me an example of something that is moderately Right? Something that is Center-Right or moderately Right Wing? Because it seems that literally every article on things that even slightly Right of Center (and even Left of Center) are declared 'Far-Right' in the opening sentence. It literally makes no sense for this many 'Far-Right' people and organizations to exist because if they did Far-Right would be a mainstream view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Des22z ( talk • contribs)
|
Not a forum for your views on who constitutes a "leftist" and why they're so bad |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Protected article states that "numerous" Hollywood and Democrat party figures have been "falsely accused" of various vile actions. No matter how wild the allegations, one would have to have proof that the accused did not take part in the alleged acts in order to dismiss out of hand the accusations. That there is no evidence that someone did something does not prove they did not do it. "Accused without credible evidence" would be an accurate and logically defensible statement for the writer of the Qanon article to make. The standards for logical non-fiction article writing are not the same as the standards for criminal prosecution. MurMiles ( talk) 14:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
71.212.221.162 ( talk) 04:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Your page is a joke about QAnon, WWG1WGA, etc. better fix it all
I don't see how QAnon is actually either far-right or a conspiracy theory, but I digress; if the general theory is that an individual and their supporters are being targeted, why does that make the theory itself have a political bias? It may happen to defend someone who is on the political right (Wikipedia doesn't say that Donald Trump is far-right.) but the source 7 ( https://fortune.com/2018/08/01/qanon-conspiracy-trump-tampa-rally/) only uses the phrase "far right" in the title and contains no substantive evidence (let alone proof) of QAnon being far right. Source 8 ( https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/business/trump-social-media-summit.html) has NO mention of "far right", only "right wing". There is one brief mention of QAnon in this source, where it mentions how Donald Trump invited a QAnon promoter to the white house. Incorrect sources.
At the very least, 'far right' should be replaced with 'right wing' - but I think the political insertion here is neither neutral nor necessary. The sources given for 'far right' [7,8] are illegitimate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernabean ( talk • contribs) 12:42, January 11, 2020 (UTC)
What precisely is "far-right" about QAnon? If you actually read the articles cited for that attribution; 2. The SPLC does not say that QAnon is Far-Right, but rather that it is allegedly popular among the far-right, as based by their "Hate Tracker" (with a dead hyperlink). 3. The NBC Article is predominantly about how Far-Right personalities are denouncing QAnon, while claiming (without a source) that the far-right originally propped it up. 4-5. The Washington Post article makes only one reference to the Far-Right, claiming that QAnon has "animated the Far Right fringes if the Internet". Again, unsourced. The article itself is about a photograph taken with Vice President Pence. The Sun-Sentinel.com article is about this same photograph. 6. The Fortune Magazine Article is behind a paywall, and only notes QAnon as being "Far Right" in the title, with no supporting evidence - as was mentioned in the original comment.
While there are certainly a number of sources that make the claim, none of the five sources provided gives evidence to it, or even expound on why they reached that conclusion. Some of the articles, while from well known outlets, are quite clearly biased. Statements such as "QAnon, the collection of baseless conspiracy theories" and "QAnon is the stuff of parody" in the Washington Post article are hard to consider as objective information, especially without any sourcing to back up those assertions whatsoever.
My reading of the Wikipedia's rules for attribution lead me to believe that biased sources should use an in-text attribution rather than an in-line attribution. I think that as Bernabean stated, a "Right Wing" attribution is more solidly supported than "Far Right", or I could even go as far as an in-text attribution of its consideration as "Far-Right" by some parties. As things are, however, I don't see a good reason to label QAnon with such a highly charged term. Surely we should take a great degree of care in how we paint the subjects of our articles?
I will leave it alone for a few days, in order to allow for a reply. After that, I may edit it to say "Right Wing" instead. Here are a few sources, some more recent than those in the original attribution. 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-qanon-right-wing-conspiracy-theory-surfaces-at-trump-rally-2018-8?op=1 2. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/30/qanon-4chan-rightwing-conspiracy-theory-explained-trump 3. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-qanon-the-conspiracy-theory-group-showing-up-to-trump-rallies 4. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-45040614
24.75.118.172 ( talk) 04:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Theophrastus
Seems there should be a mention in the article about QAnon-supporting actor Isaac Kappy, who repeatedly harassed Seth Green and accused him and other individuals of pedophilia before committing suicide, with his death itself becoming the subject of conspiracy theories. See [20]. 2600:1014:B025:7EFA:CCBC:F540:6B77:138F ( talk) 16:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The policies QAnon believers embrace (mass arrests, martial law, internment camps, summary executions in some cases) would clearly amount to fascism if actually carried out. In addition they tend to embrace fascism-adjacent foreign leaders such as Vladimir Putin. Here is an example of a source linking the movement to fascism. 2600:1014:B01D:B988:25AE:B858:95D7:5AC5 ( talk) 12:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
This paragraph is very unclear, it is difficult to understand what actually happened in this incident. I assume the GVCSF in the tweet was not referring to the school, but this is not stated. There is no hint what the tweet was actually about. But most relevantly, there seems to be no connection with "Q" only to "Qanon supporters". Is this one example too many? Could the paragraph be just deleted? 4shires ( talk) 10:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Q has has falsely accused" is biased and incorrect. Change to "accused". "Donald Trump feigned collusion with Russia and worked with Mueller"is absolutely incorrect. The ENTIRE history section including Origins, Background, and False claims is biased in its nature and factually incorrect. Analysis and Appeal and Disillusionment sections are propagandizing Wikipedia's take on a subject that should be described and explained in a neutral and objective manner. Instead, the authors take great care to color their interpretation of events in hindsight in order to sway potential readers of the misleading nature of the Qanon movement. This is paramount because of the fact the wikipedia entry is highlighted as if it were an ad on the bottom of all Q related Youtube videos. Unless this is changed, Wikipedia will be outed as propaganda by other more vigilant social media users than myself. Qtronicus ( talk) 16:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
16:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change far right to heavily liberaterian ABruhRandomUser ( talk) 21:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Although the incident has all the earmarks of a QAnon follower, are there any sources that actually mention QAnon in connection with Moreno or the incident? All I could find was Gizmodo saying "(However, one could reasonably hazard a guess that it involves QAnon.)", which doesn't seem sufficient to include it in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
There's some debate over whether or not this article should be included in
Category:Vaccine hesitancy.
It was added by
Rushwrj13 with the summary Considering 100% of the believers in this are also anti-vax, This belongs here. Do not revert this edit and say that there is "no evidence" for this. Look on any YouTube or Facebook comment section.
This utterly fails
WP:BURDEN and
WP:NOR, even if I think it's correct.
It was removed by
Schazjmd and then
restored by
Beyond_My_Ken.
While I do assume that the article would be included in that category if this article was in an ideal state of completion, the article currently does not mention vaccines in any way. So, while Rushwrj13 abd BMK may be right overall, Schazjmd is right on policy. That said, the simple remedy would be to summarize and cite a source about how they're scared of a Coronavirus vaccine and have said they wouldn't take it. I vaguely recall seeing such a source floating about before I got my morning caffeine but I have to go to work so I can't re-find and add it right now -- I just know that it should exist. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggest editing the "100% of qanon followers are anti-vax comment, we aren't all anti-vax, polio etc. Influenza on the other hand considering its a new strain each season seems useless getting a vax for last years strain. 2600:1000:B120:C140:4135:CAD4:3BC3:AFA0 ( talk) 03:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
This is absurd. Somebody needs to change this. We are a movement and a theory can be disproven with evidence and we have evidence. This is bias. River Garza ( talk) 00:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
The first paragraph states that QAnon details "a supposed secret plot by an alleged deep state against U.S. President Donald Trump and his supporters".
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't it the other way around? From what I can gather, QAnon followers believe in an all-powerful, Satan-worshipping, global deep state engaged in international child trafficking, and that President Trump is working to bring their crimes to an end. I can imagine that some adherents also believe in a secret plot against POTUS, but surely that cannot qualify as the crux of the theory (and mind you, this definition makes up line 1 and 2 of the entire article).
Wouldn't it be more accurate to define the core QAnon belief as "a supposed secret plot by U.S. President Donald Trump against an alleged deep state"? Edelsheim ( talk) 19:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
'Far-Right' needs to be changed to 'Right Wing' in the initial paragraph as it more closely associated to the Republican side of the spectrum and against the socialism ideology., The use of the 'Far-Right' terminology is derogatory as it is associated to hate groups which QAnon is not. The research done by the group is open source and publicly available. DavidBTripp ( talk) 04:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The term "Conspiracy Theory" is really a bad term. A "Theory" in science, at least must have observational or experimental evidence. I really prefer the term "Conspiracy Fantasy" where that's not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfoxmich ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
qmap.pub I mean this is just crazy not to have it here. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:4CBF:92CD:9B88:F7AB ( talk) 13:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Several reliable sources have weighed in on my, and others', contention that QAnon's identity is likely to be known by Jim Watkins, 8chan's owner, or his son Ron Watkins, 8chan's administrator. More weight should be given to our theory about QAnon's identity.
I'm not the only subject matter expert to believe this:
Given the strength of the sources, this theory ought to receive at least two sentences in the identity section.
I'd write it like this:
As QAnon relies on a tripcode to verify themselves, and the tripcode is verified by 8chan's server and not reproducible on other imageboards, QAnon was not able to post when the website went down following the El Paso shooting. [1] This apparent conflict of interest, [2] combined with statements by 8chan's founder Fredrick Brennan, [3] Jim Watkins' use of a "Q" collar pin, [4] and Watkins' financial interest in a QAnon super PAC have led to widespread speculation that either Jim Watkins or his son, 8chan's administrator Ron Watkins, knows the identity of QAnon; [5] [6] though they deny this. [7] [8]
References
Perhaps
GRuban is interested in taking a swing at it.
Psiĥedelisto (
talk •
contribs) please always
ping!
19:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Rothschild told me they'd see if their editor was interested. In the mean time...:
As QAnon relies on a tripcode to verify themselves, and the tripcode is verified by 8chan's server and not reproducible on other imageboards, QAnon was not able to post when the website went down following the El Paso shooting. [1] This apparent conflict of interest, combined with statements by 8chan's founder Fredrick Brennan, Jim Watkins' use of a "Q" collar pin, and Watkins' financial interest in a QAnon super PAC which advertises on 8chan have led to widespread speculation that either Watkins or his son, 8chan's administrator Ron Watkins, knows the identity of QAnon. [2] [3] Both deny knowing "Q"'s identity. [2] [4]
References
@ HandThatFeeds: Thoughts? I've cleaned up the WP:SYNTH and stuck to the major sources. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This info is incorrect and inaccurate. Comes across as far left propaganda trying to discredit a legit movement. 2601:280:4700:1277:F144:C5C5:5D8A:67E ( talk) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Really, no information?? 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:B131:DF:A9A7:7AD6 ( talk) 05:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
There is now a network of independent churches who use QAnon as their lens for interpreting the Bible [21]. This seems worth mentioning, especially since the group’s spiritual advisor is the same guy the film The Trump Prophecy was made about. 97.116.88.75 ( talk) 14:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Qanon is a factual movement and opposition force against the globalist takeover of the world. 69.132.218.109 ( talk) 15:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove conspiracy theorie from the title-proof-> MILITARY INTELLIGENCE TEAM MILITARY INTELLIGENCE BATTALION (STRATEGIC SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE) MIL INTELL BRIGADE DESIGNATION _ MI BRIGADE (STRAT SIGINT) 32536AA00: _ MI TM (UTAH)(STRAT SIGINT) 32536AB00: _ MI TM (OCMC)(STRAT SIGINT) 32536AC00: _ MI TM (DET A)(STRAT SIGINT) Q
Abvously know one has read the beginning, fact check your sources please. 75.108.242.56 ( talk) 19:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
It is most annoying when a writer is trying to make a point and they use a FRENCH word while trying to communicate in English. Please, please, please keep your French to yourself and let us know what you are TRYING to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.67.206 ( talk) 21:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Guy,you are a very naughty boy! Hilarious, but VERY naughty... FillsHerTease ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
NOTAFORUM
|
---|
This article is incredibly biased. I'm tired of seeing articles on political topics, that aren't left-leaning, being labelled as far right. This movement is only far-right, if your viewpoint originates from the far-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnedresponsibility ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
First time reading this article and I agree it is very biased. First off, the statement that Qanon's accusations of liberal Hollywood celebrities, politicians, etc. are false should be considered "weasel words" at worst. Documentation, please, that you have proven Qanon's accusations to be FALSE. It's not false just because you can't find evidence that it isn't. Knock it off and get back to being like a real encyclopedia. Write such a statement as an objective, not as a biased opinion. I miss it when biased statements like that used to be removed or corrected. Now they just get left in an article. This is why Wikipedia is imploding on itself and can't find enough donors (I stopped donating several years ago). What, it's ok to make a statement like that without citation, when it fits the agenda? Who are we trying to protect here, really? 66.227.209.60 ( talk) 02:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
|
WP:NOTHERE |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article in its current state does not display a /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Changes made to reflect a more neutral position with less unsubstantiated accusations (use of words like "hostile") resulted in a level of protection being given to this article so ordinary users can no longer edit it. This leaves the content of the article, which is again mentioned to be of the NON-NETURAL variety, subject to whatever "wikipedia editors" desire. Users are ANGRY about this and cannot TRUST editors to offer a NEUTRAL point of view because of the elevation of protection when the article is attempted to be corrected. It is frustrating hearing others tell me they cannot trust Wikipedia anymore because of behaviors like this. Unforutantely, most do not further to the talk page and will not see the reality of this situation. Therefore, I serve this message as both a REQUEST for users to allow them to edit the page as wikipedia normally functions - and a WARNING of the rapid trust that is being lost in WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowman2333 ( talk • contribs) 07:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Please note this is NOT OKAY and has resulted in many ANGRY USERS. Wikipedia is supposed to be an UNBIAS source. The public perception has shifted heavily and it does not look good for Wikipedia! AGAIN, I serve this message as both a REQUEST for users to allow them to edit the page as wikipedia normally functions - and a WARNING of the rapid trust that is being lost in WIKIPEDIA. Thanks! ( Cowman2333) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ian and welcome! Feel free to take whatever actions you like! Will you have the COURAGE to leave this log of evidence of your BIAS up though? Will you SILENCE users when they have the COURAGE to call you out? Are you interested in FACTS? I have been with Wikipedia for 7 years - check my page. This behavior displayed here is NOT good. Cowman2333 ( talk) 23:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Note how you are still arguing the legitimacy of qanon EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NOT EVEN DISPUTED THAT. I have only coming here asking for the article to be presented up to wikipedia's standards as they once were - neutral! What does that say about your own personal convictions? The users see it for what it is! Cowman2333 ( talk) 23:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC) |
I have requested semi-protection for the article as the result of the latest round of edits. Adelsheim ( talk) 08:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Q never accused Tom hanks, Sarah Ruth Ashcraft did on her twitter page. 2A01:E35:243D:A300:FDA0:8EF9:95E6:DEA8 ( talk) 18:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This Article fool of falsehoods which cite sources and opinions and not facts Trollmoleneutral ( talk) 03:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi I respectfully request that you change the introductory phrase from "QAnon is a conspiracy theory" to "QAnon literally means 'Q Anonymous' which refers to either an anonymous person/persons who are currently members of a discord bulletin board known as 8-Chan" [end of recommended change to your opening phrase]
The reason why I request this change is to transmit true grammatical context to the actual noun 'QAnon', so as to prevent descriptive bias from influencing a 1st time readers 'opinion' about the term, prior to establishing context (yet to be explained) <-- It is grammatically misleading to insert adjective bias to the introductory description of the noun (the post predicate explanation of the term is heavily weighted with opinion rather than descriptive context).
Kind regards, Tbtheonly. Tbtheonly ( talk) 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Wikipedia summarizes
reliable sources. Those sources overwhelmingly describe this as a conspiracy theory, and consistently emphasize the total lack of compelling evidence for QAnon's claims. Intentionally allowing people to come to false or unsupported conclusions would be fundamentally opposed to our goals as an encyclopedia. There are also other problems with this proposal, such as that
8chan and
Discord are completely separate.
Grayfell (
talk)
21:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)I have to agree with TBtheonly on their suggested edit. The definition of QAnon makes far more sense than the emotive language of "conspiracy theory". At the very least, the definition of QAnon should be the leading sentence, then you can say something like "QAnon is thought of as a "conspiracy theory" by many sources (I would leave out the reliable part - even that is now diluted and in question, unless you want to name your "reliable" sources!) Angelor2000 ( talk) 17:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)angelor2000
4chan is moderated, contrary to what the article states. That is, after all, why Qanon moved to 8chan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8102:4C12:CDEC:FCE5:EDE3:77FC ( talk) 09:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In paragraph 1, the term "falsely accused" should be changed to "accused". 99wgornicki99 ( talk) 17:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the word "CONSPIRACY" that word only applies to something that can't be proven. Like the word "THEORY" Everything 'Q' puts out are fact and are proven to be fact day after day. 63.96.234.27 ( talk) 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The extended-confirmed protection of QAnon ends later tonight (00:54 GMT on September 22, 2018). Considering the considerable following it appears to have garnered over the summer, and its purveyors' tendencies to organize off-wiki to influence the article, I think we should probably brace ourselves. Adelsheim ( talk) 18:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
They cover post-1932 American politics and biographies of living or recently decease persons. Let me know if more is needed, eg 1RR. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Just so you're aware of off-Wiki organizing to influence this articl [1] [2]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
We can now add the QAnon campaign has fuelled (sorry, did not meant to use cruel irony) the delirium of the suspected arsonist charged for the Holy Fire. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/forrest-gordon-accused-arson-california-fire-conspiracy-theorist-710023/ Balayka ( Balayka) 18:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Found another QAnon-related incident. Seems significant enough. Adelsheim ( talk) 15:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
This article does not reflect Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. It is filled with weasel words and does not give a balanced view of the subject. Since the author has locked the page, again showing their biased view point, we are unable to contest the neutrality of this page with a tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C001:28C5:9119:D26F:59A4:1D1D ( talk) 16:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "See also", "Nudge theory" should be removed as it completely unrelated to the QAnon conspiracy. The text throughout the page does not refer in any way to "Nudge theory". LouisNolin ( talk) 20:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Hhkohh (
talk)
12:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)I consider it highly unlikely Pence had known of the guy with the Q patch before their fleeting encounter that just happened to be captured in a photo. IMO the photo creates a dubious impression Pence associates with Q people or endorses their views. I suggest the photo be removed. soibangla ( talk) 22:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory was initially promoted by Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi,[9] but in May 2018 Right Wing Watch reported that Jones and Corsi had ceased to support QAnon, declaring the source to now be "completely compromised".[13]
This first part of this statement is categorically false and the source is unsubstantiated. Q started in 4chan /pol months prior to any popular conspiracy shows ever mentioning or reporting on it. The second part detailing their objection in any support of Q is accurate. This correction is made with no political/economic bias, but providing pure truth. Suggestion for improvement would be just to remove the first error, something like this-
Right Wing Watch reported on May 2018 that Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi had ceased to support QAnon, declaring the source to now be "completely compromised".[13]
Or given the pure political bias of the source, remove it entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.229.138.205 ( talk) 04:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
CONCERN: I believe the 24% statistic cited from the Washington Post poll is incorrect. The 24 from the poll is a temperature metric indicating negative sentiment. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/30/the-qanon-conspiracy-movement-is-very-unpopular-our-new-poll-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b15592a1956e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.67.165 ( talk) 10:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I will no longer contribute financially to Wikipedia until the biased nature of this reporting has the stigmatism of "conspiracy theory" removed from the Q movement. The use of this term is clearly a hypocritical one and needs serious consideration by all Wikipedia readers. A "theory" is something that does not exist. Conspiracies take place every day. Calling Q followers "conspiracy theorists" is like saying anyone who follows the #METOO or #WOMENSRIGHTS or any other positively motivated movement is nothing but conspiracy theorists. Remove your opined inclusion of this false term or forever be labeled what many, many people have exclaimed before... that Wikipedia is not a trusted source for information. Questions? emailbullock@gmail. 107.139.73.142 ( talk) 15:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Why are we avoiding the term "conspiracy thoery" and instead using the "movement" euphemism? Our sources all call it a conspiracy theory, we should stick to that. — Strongjam ( talk) 01:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Buzzfeed published an article [6] today with the title "It's Looking Extremely Likely That QAnon Is A Leftist Prank On Trump Supporters." Should a section or subsection of the article be included to document reportage of hoax potential? Siberian Husky ( talk) 18:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I found this article not to be definitive enough about the beliefs of this group, so I will attempt to clarify it:
The deepest held beliefs of Q-anon are simply, in a quote paraphrasing the late Isaac Asimov:
"My ignorance is better than your knowledge."
It is an anti-intellectual movement that is anti-science, anti-global warming, pro-home religious schooling, and prone to promulgate almost any political conspiracy theory they see as furthering this agenda or otherwise disruptive of an educational system that teaches much of anything useful to society. As the above quote would indicate, in areas other than fundamentalist or extremist religion, the followers of Q-anon are stupid to a fault, and like other religious fundamentalist causes, view mobile communications technology and associated with social networking and propaganda dissemination as a means to an end ordained by their God.
Fundamentalist religious organizations like Q-anon believe that the science that gave humanity the miracle of flight or the engineering skills to build skyscrapers so that planes carrying innocent passengers could be flown into the side of tall buildings that are not houses of worship. The Q-anon movement should be considered armed and dangerous for exactly this reason.
Recently the Q-anon movement has been pro-Trump, but one should not expect that it will remain politically aligned with anyone who has shown any indication that they will listen or align themselves politically for reasons not related to the interests of fundamentalist religion in the Bible Belt of the United States. Danshawen ( talk)danshawen —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't want to list the page to give it any extra attention, but if you check the history you'll see IP addresses and throwaway accounts trying to add the page. To avoid having to semiprotect the page just over that, perhaps an admin can add the site to the global spam blacklist? Gatemansgc ( TɅ̊LK) 16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: a presumably American[8] individual that may have later grown to include multiple individuals, To: an alleged American individual, that may have later joined forces with other individuals, all claiming... AlphaWren ( talk) 05:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.In the second paragraph, it says, "The conspiracy theory, mainly popularized by supporters of President Trump under the names The Storm and The Great Awakening, has been widely characterized as...", given how close the election was, can we give a little more credit to the number of supporters President Trump has? Granted, Trump's base is not known to be as actively involved in the majority of mainstream news sources as Trump's detractors, but Trump's base is by no means small, and the tone of this article makes it seem as though the people paying attention to QAnon is a tiny minority of Americans. To fix this, I propose changing the sentence to say, "has been characterized as...", (removing the word "widely"), or to say "has been widely characterized by its detractors as...".
The above argument in mind... In the first paragraph, where it says, "The user has falsely accused numerous liberal Hollywood actors...", although there is a lack of evidence for the accusations, the accusations received no small amount of attention, and given that there hasn't been a formal investigation into the claims, shouldn't we remove the word "falsely" from that, since it presupposes a conclusion with which a significant number of people disagree?
Epistemologically, we have two groups here. One group thinks Q is legit, another doesn't. Both groups believe they are privy to sufficient evidence that they suppose their views are not refutable (as with nearly every argued point of view). Apparently, neither group is able to fully convince the other; so without that kind of closure, it's unfair to suppose that your "unsupported refutation" is any better than Q's "unsupported accusation". And, in general, it's not rational to out any claim, no matter how unlikely it seems, unless there is evidence against it. For example, there's lots of evidence supporting the current theories about origin of life and evolution, but it's still called a "theory" because it's not proven; and although the probability of life evolving to its current complexity on on earth within the geologically evident timeframe is quite low, nobody's putting "false" in front of claims on Darwin's wiki. Without getting too sidetracked, what I'm saying is, if a sufficient number of people hold to an opinion, that opinion should be treated as potentially credible unless objectively proven otherwise, regardless of the weight of probability against it. 63.255.126.132 ( talk) 23:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Is it really a "far right" conspiracy theory? The only source we have is splcenter and I highly doubt that's a neutral source. Also, if 50% of floridians heard of QAnon and 25% support it, is wikipedia saying that 25% of floridians are "far right"? Something does not add up. i think there is a tendency to smear political opponents as "far right" and that's fine, just not on wikipedia. i think it should be changed to "ring wing" or something like that because it's not just some fringe group of people who accept it. PumpkinGoo ( talk) 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"Southern Poverty Law Center" is neutral? Really? -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 01:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC) 24% Floridians surely not "far right". -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 01:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
58% of Floridians are familiar enough with QAnon to have an opinion about it, among whom gave a poor average rating of only 24 (range 0 to 100) of the conspiracy theory.Here is an article on FoxNews.com; saying
they are members of the fringe, right-wing group QAnon which believes in massive conspiracies. StrayBolt ( talk) 17:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
A protected page? So we can't correct what's wrong. We're all finding out that this "conspiracy theories" are true. Let's open the page for correction. Palatable ( talk) 19:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
dead links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.237.88 ( talk) 08:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The reference section has an empty 'Citations' subheading, then all of the citations appear under the 'Tweets' subheading. JezGrove ( talk) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
This has to be about the 10th Wikipedia article I've looked at in the past few weeks beginning with "X is a far right etc..."
This is a serious problem that apparently no one at Wikipedia seems concerned about.
Left and Far-Left activists, media outlets and organizations are engaging the tactic of labeling anything and everything they disagree with 'Far-Right' and 'Alt-Right.' They have been doing this for the last few years. In case you need it spelling out for you, Wikipedia: LEFT AND FAR-LEFT WEBSITES THAT ENGAGE IN THIS TACTIC ARE NOT 'RELIABLE SOURCES' AND CERTAINLY NOT EVIDENCE OF YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT SOMETHING IS FAR-RIGHT.
This has to be the most reckless form of it considering that the 'QANON HUB' site specifically states on its homepage that Q-anon is not partisan, is for everyone both Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, Liberal or Conservative who love America.
So it would seem that it is Wikipedia's view that loving America is a Far-Right viewpoint.
It's amazing that it's come to this.
Can someone at Wikipedia give me an example of something that is moderately Right? Something that is Center-Right or moderately Right Wing? Because it seems that literally every article on things that even slightly Right of Center (and even Left of Center) are declared 'Far-Right' in the opening sentence. It literally makes no sense for this many 'Far-Right' people and organizations to exist because if they did Far-Right would be a mainstream view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Des22z ( talk • contribs)
Can someone at Wikipedia give me an example of something that is moderately Right? Something that is Center-Right or moderately Right Wing?
inaccurate or disingenuous information about "The FBI" lable. It was a field office and not hea Quillpusher007 ( talk) 02:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
QAnon refers to the person espousing the conspiracy theories, not the actual theory itself. 'Anon' is a 2nd person pronoun for any anonymous user. Referring to the "theory" as QAnon sounds stupid and hurts the page's credibility. 89.101.120.203 ( talk) 13:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like a review of this material, there is a "Far right" claim and I am far from far right. QAnon has done nothing but tell me to think for myself and research for myself. I have and I see the BIAS is wide and far. 68.147.180.114 ( talk) 03:43, 12 September 2019 (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.
I think the section title says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pperrin uk ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."... maybe you could reflect on this? Pperrin uk ( talk) 21:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There seems to be much confusion either accidental or intentional when information pertaining to Qanon is concerned. On George W Bush’s Wiki page you will notice that the white supremacists who loved him for invading the Middle East aren’t listed each time they commits a crime against a Muslim. Unclefuzzydix ( talk) 04:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the article would be better off calling QAnon a "conspiracy theorist", albeit an unknown identity one, rather than a conspiracy theory, aka better English. Alex Jones is described as a conspiracy THEORIST, not theory. A person isn't a theory even if we don't know who they are. If I am missing something please let me know. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. ( talk) 20:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: ... has been characterized as "baseless",[17][18][19] "unhinged",[20] and "evidence-free".[21]
to
has been characterized as "baseless",[17][18][19] "unhinged",[20] and "evidence-free"[21] by news outlets.
[their voice should matter, but they are just opinions nonetheless and should hence be identified AS "someone" (news outlets).] 84.52.226.62 ( talk) 03:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Source 24 is to a self-identified opinion article. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not opinions. Likewise source 2 links to Southern Poverty Center, an expressly political organization which exists, as the main page of their website expressly states, to "battle racial and social injustice." https://www.splcenter.org/ They are not a reliable source just as a right-wing activist website would not be. Citation 10's headline "The Storm is the New Pizzagate - Only Worse" contains loaded language. It is clearly not objective. Likewise with source 13, "As QAnon Goes Mainstream, Trump's Rallies Are Turning Darker." Citation 23 links to a self-identified "perspective" article, there defined as "Discussion of News Politics with a point of view," i.e. an opinion article. Citing opinion blogs just because they are published by powerful organizations instead of individuals does not make them anything more than online opinion blogs. These citations should be removed. Electro blob ( talk) 18:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Quote: "In particular, the goal of the Wikipedia is to produce the best encyclopedia encapsulating the sum total of human knowledge.... [It] offers the possibility of everything being written into history, with all of mankind sharing knowledge and information in a way that enables everyone to profit from it." — Wikipedia:Testimonials
Probably I should just keep quiet, but this is a pet peeve of mine. First, I don't support QAnon or know anything much about it at all. I don't think for a moment that it's true, nor should we suggest that it is. But surely the "facts" that a wikipedia page should be reporting is that reliable sources SAY that X is a conspiracy theory, that they report that Y is baseless, unhinged, whatever - mot that "X is a conspiracy theory". Personal opinions aside, why is it Wikipedias job to make judgement calls and decide that something that many people beleive IS false? You could do the same to any religion; none are supported by evidence. You should report what the sources say, not give judgment on whether the sources are correct and which side is right. I'm not saying it should be given undue weight or whatever. You needn't include "the other side" from unreliable sources, for example. I just think it's not wikipedias place to chose the facts, merely to tell people what OTHER, reliable sources SAY is fact. By telling them "this is what the sources say". They can judge for themselves. This is basically what we do already, but when you write it as "X IS Y" people read it differently from "according to A, evidence shows X is Y" I've brought this up on other pages as well, don't know if has ever made the slightest difference. It feels to me like saying "Christianity is a myth and conspiracy theory, a baseless and evidence-free delusion", or something like that. Maybe that is what Wikipedia says. I don't know. You can certainly find plenty of sources that will say so, but why is it Wikipedia's job to make that call? The FACT is that many people say it's bunk, and that many people beleive it regardless. Anything more is either just putting their words onto Wikipedia as Truth or putting your own personal opinion, no matter how convinced you may be. This is not the same as pretending it's valid, it's just a matter of changing "it IS a conspiracy" to "an alleged conspiracy". Or whatever. Because as far as I'm concerned that's as far as wikipedia should go, on anything of this nature. That is all.
Idumea47b (
talk)
21:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Can we remove Trump's quote from the "Identity of Q" section? He was referring to the Anonymous New York Times author from 2018/
https://www.mediaite.com/trump/my-peter-trump-trade-advisor-peter-navarro-is-reportedly-hunting-anonymous/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.48.211 ( talk) 16:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we remove the line at the bottom of the 'Identity of Q' section? Trump was being asked about who the Anonymous New York Times author was, not about QAnon. https://twitter.com/johnrobertsFox/status/1227666863678803968
Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office on February 11, 2020, President Trump was asked if he knew who "anonymous" is. He replied, "I don’t want to say, but you’d be surprised."[55] BearFish56 ( talk) 17:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Q has falsely accused numerous liberal Hollywood actors, Democratic politicians, and high-ranking officials of engaging in an international child sex trafficking ring, "
Claims missing citation.
Making claims at the first-half of a complex sentence doesn't absolve the need for citation.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Citation_needed Mildsaucewiki ( talk) 01:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
It says:
Harassment of Jim Acosta
At a Trump rally in Tampa, Florida on July 31, 2018, Trump supporters exhibited hostile behavior toward CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta. Exponents of QAnon-related theories were at the rally.[106]
First, you don't know that everyone who attended the rally was a Trump supporter. Some people could have been simple attendees.
Second, it should be "some", unless you're saying that every Trump supporter there exhibited hostile behavior.
Third -- and, most egregiously -- without any warrant, you connect the crowd's "hostile [according to whose judgment?] behavior" towards C. N. N.'s Acosta with "[e]xponents" of "QAnon-related [?] theories" who were also there. How do you classify, "QAnon-related"? How do you know QAnon-related theorists were there? Also, where is your evidence that such people also exhibited hostile behavior towards Acosta?
All of these points need, I think, clarification. If you can prove or source them -- fine. Otherwise, they look to me like bias. Mwidunn ( talk) 05:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)mwidunn
Not a general forum for discussion of the political spectrum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
EDIT - After responding to the replies my initial post received, it appears Wikipedia has deleted the entire conversation. Luckily, I saved it to a txt file because I suspected something like this would happen, so I'm posting the entire conversation here. This has to be about the 10th Wikipedia article I've looked at in the past few weeks beginning with "X is a far right etc..." This is a serious problem that apparently no one at Wikipedia seems concerned about. Left and Far-Left activists, media outlets and organizations are engaging the tactic of labeling anything and everything they disagree with 'Far-Right' and 'Alt-Right.' They have been doing this for the last few years. In case you need it spelling out for you, Wikipedia: LEFT AND FAR-LEFT WEBSITES THAT ENGAGE IN THIS TACTIC ARE NOT 'RELIABLE SOURCES' AND CERTAINLY NOT EVIDENCE OF YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT SOMETHING IS FAR-RIGHT. This has to be the most reckless form of it considering that the 'QANON HUB' site specifically states on its homepage that Q-anon is not partisan, is for everyone both Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, Liberal or Conservative who love America. So it would seem that it is Wikipedia's view that loving America is a Far-Right viewpoint. It's amazing that it's come to this. Can someone at Wikipedia give me an example of something that is moderately Right? Something that is Center-Right or moderately Right Wing? Because it seems that literally every article on things that even slightly Right of Center (and even Left of Center) are declared 'Far-Right' in the opening sentence. It literally makes no sense for this many 'Far-Right' people and organizations to exist because if they did Far-Right would be a mainstream view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Des22z ( talk • contribs)
|
Not a forum for your views on who constitutes a "leftist" and why they're so bad |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Protected article states that "numerous" Hollywood and Democrat party figures have been "falsely accused" of various vile actions. No matter how wild the allegations, one would have to have proof that the accused did not take part in the alleged acts in order to dismiss out of hand the accusations. That there is no evidence that someone did something does not prove they did not do it. "Accused without credible evidence" would be an accurate and logically defensible statement for the writer of the Qanon article to make. The standards for logical non-fiction article writing are not the same as the standards for criminal prosecution. MurMiles ( talk) 14:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
71.212.221.162 ( talk) 04:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Your page is a joke about QAnon, WWG1WGA, etc. better fix it all
I don't see how QAnon is actually either far-right or a conspiracy theory, but I digress; if the general theory is that an individual and their supporters are being targeted, why does that make the theory itself have a political bias? It may happen to defend someone who is on the political right (Wikipedia doesn't say that Donald Trump is far-right.) but the source 7 ( https://fortune.com/2018/08/01/qanon-conspiracy-trump-tampa-rally/) only uses the phrase "far right" in the title and contains no substantive evidence (let alone proof) of QAnon being far right. Source 8 ( https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/business/trump-social-media-summit.html) has NO mention of "far right", only "right wing". There is one brief mention of QAnon in this source, where it mentions how Donald Trump invited a QAnon promoter to the white house. Incorrect sources.
At the very least, 'far right' should be replaced with 'right wing' - but I think the political insertion here is neither neutral nor necessary. The sources given for 'far right' [7,8] are illegitimate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernabean ( talk • contribs) 12:42, January 11, 2020 (UTC)
What precisely is "far-right" about QAnon? If you actually read the articles cited for that attribution; 2. The SPLC does not say that QAnon is Far-Right, but rather that it is allegedly popular among the far-right, as based by their "Hate Tracker" (with a dead hyperlink). 3. The NBC Article is predominantly about how Far-Right personalities are denouncing QAnon, while claiming (without a source) that the far-right originally propped it up. 4-5. The Washington Post article makes only one reference to the Far-Right, claiming that QAnon has "animated the Far Right fringes if the Internet". Again, unsourced. The article itself is about a photograph taken with Vice President Pence. The Sun-Sentinel.com article is about this same photograph. 6. The Fortune Magazine Article is behind a paywall, and only notes QAnon as being "Far Right" in the title, with no supporting evidence - as was mentioned in the original comment.
While there are certainly a number of sources that make the claim, none of the five sources provided gives evidence to it, or even expound on why they reached that conclusion. Some of the articles, while from well known outlets, are quite clearly biased. Statements such as "QAnon, the collection of baseless conspiracy theories" and "QAnon is the stuff of parody" in the Washington Post article are hard to consider as objective information, especially without any sourcing to back up those assertions whatsoever.
My reading of the Wikipedia's rules for attribution lead me to believe that biased sources should use an in-text attribution rather than an in-line attribution. I think that as Bernabean stated, a "Right Wing" attribution is more solidly supported than "Far Right", or I could even go as far as an in-text attribution of its consideration as "Far-Right" by some parties. As things are, however, I don't see a good reason to label QAnon with such a highly charged term. Surely we should take a great degree of care in how we paint the subjects of our articles?
I will leave it alone for a few days, in order to allow for a reply. After that, I may edit it to say "Right Wing" instead. Here are a few sources, some more recent than those in the original attribution. 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-qanon-right-wing-conspiracy-theory-surfaces-at-trump-rally-2018-8?op=1 2. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/30/qanon-4chan-rightwing-conspiracy-theory-explained-trump 3. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-qanon-the-conspiracy-theory-group-showing-up-to-trump-rallies 4. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-45040614
24.75.118.172 ( talk) 04:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Theophrastus
Seems there should be a mention in the article about QAnon-supporting actor Isaac Kappy, who repeatedly harassed Seth Green and accused him and other individuals of pedophilia before committing suicide, with his death itself becoming the subject of conspiracy theories. See [20]. 2600:1014:B025:7EFA:CCBC:F540:6B77:138F ( talk) 16:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The policies QAnon believers embrace (mass arrests, martial law, internment camps, summary executions in some cases) would clearly amount to fascism if actually carried out. In addition they tend to embrace fascism-adjacent foreign leaders such as Vladimir Putin. Here is an example of a source linking the movement to fascism. 2600:1014:B01D:B988:25AE:B858:95D7:5AC5 ( talk) 12:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
This paragraph is very unclear, it is difficult to understand what actually happened in this incident. I assume the GVCSF in the tweet was not referring to the school, but this is not stated. There is no hint what the tweet was actually about. But most relevantly, there seems to be no connection with "Q" only to "Qanon supporters". Is this one example too many? Could the paragraph be just deleted? 4shires ( talk) 10:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Q has has falsely accused" is biased and incorrect. Change to "accused". "Donald Trump feigned collusion with Russia and worked with Mueller"is absolutely incorrect. The ENTIRE history section including Origins, Background, and False claims is biased in its nature and factually incorrect. Analysis and Appeal and Disillusionment sections are propagandizing Wikipedia's take on a subject that should be described and explained in a neutral and objective manner. Instead, the authors take great care to color their interpretation of events in hindsight in order to sway potential readers of the misleading nature of the Qanon movement. This is paramount because of the fact the wikipedia entry is highlighted as if it were an ad on the bottom of all Q related Youtube videos. Unless this is changed, Wikipedia will be outed as propaganda by other more vigilant social media users than myself. Qtronicus ( talk) 16:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
16:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change far right to heavily liberaterian ABruhRandomUser ( talk) 21:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Although the incident has all the earmarks of a QAnon follower, are there any sources that actually mention QAnon in connection with Moreno or the incident? All I could find was Gizmodo saying "(However, one could reasonably hazard a guess that it involves QAnon.)", which doesn't seem sufficient to include it in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
There's some debate over whether or not this article should be included in
Category:Vaccine hesitancy.
It was added by
Rushwrj13 with the summary Considering 100% of the believers in this are also anti-vax, This belongs here. Do not revert this edit and say that there is "no evidence" for this. Look on any YouTube or Facebook comment section.
This utterly fails
WP:BURDEN and
WP:NOR, even if I think it's correct.
It was removed by
Schazjmd and then
restored by
Beyond_My_Ken.
While I do assume that the article would be included in that category if this article was in an ideal state of completion, the article currently does not mention vaccines in any way. So, while Rushwrj13 abd BMK may be right overall, Schazjmd is right on policy. That said, the simple remedy would be to summarize and cite a source about how they're scared of a Coronavirus vaccine and have said they wouldn't take it. I vaguely recall seeing such a source floating about before I got my morning caffeine but I have to go to work so I can't re-find and add it right now -- I just know that it should exist. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggest editing the "100% of qanon followers are anti-vax comment, we aren't all anti-vax, polio etc. Influenza on the other hand considering its a new strain each season seems useless getting a vax for last years strain. 2600:1000:B120:C140:4135:CAD4:3BC3:AFA0 ( talk) 03:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
This is absurd. Somebody needs to change this. We are a movement and a theory can be disproven with evidence and we have evidence. This is bias. River Garza ( talk) 00:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
The first paragraph states that QAnon details "a supposed secret plot by an alleged deep state against U.S. President Donald Trump and his supporters".
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't it the other way around? From what I can gather, QAnon followers believe in an all-powerful, Satan-worshipping, global deep state engaged in international child trafficking, and that President Trump is working to bring their crimes to an end. I can imagine that some adherents also believe in a secret plot against POTUS, but surely that cannot qualify as the crux of the theory (and mind you, this definition makes up line 1 and 2 of the entire article).
Wouldn't it be more accurate to define the core QAnon belief as "a supposed secret plot by U.S. President Donald Trump against an alleged deep state"? Edelsheim ( talk) 19:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
'Far-Right' needs to be changed to 'Right Wing' in the initial paragraph as it more closely associated to the Republican side of the spectrum and against the socialism ideology., The use of the 'Far-Right' terminology is derogatory as it is associated to hate groups which QAnon is not. The research done by the group is open source and publicly available. DavidBTripp ( talk) 04:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The term "Conspiracy Theory" is really a bad term. A "Theory" in science, at least must have observational or experimental evidence. I really prefer the term "Conspiracy Fantasy" where that's not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfoxmich ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
qmap.pub I mean this is just crazy not to have it here. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:4CBF:92CD:9B88:F7AB ( talk) 13:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Several reliable sources have weighed in on my, and others', contention that QAnon's identity is likely to be known by Jim Watkins, 8chan's owner, or his son Ron Watkins, 8chan's administrator. More weight should be given to our theory about QAnon's identity.
I'm not the only subject matter expert to believe this:
Given the strength of the sources, this theory ought to receive at least two sentences in the identity section.
I'd write it like this:
As QAnon relies on a tripcode to verify themselves, and the tripcode is verified by 8chan's server and not reproducible on other imageboards, QAnon was not able to post when the website went down following the El Paso shooting. [1] This apparent conflict of interest, [2] combined with statements by 8chan's founder Fredrick Brennan, [3] Jim Watkins' use of a "Q" collar pin, [4] and Watkins' financial interest in a QAnon super PAC have led to widespread speculation that either Jim Watkins or his son, 8chan's administrator Ron Watkins, knows the identity of QAnon; [5] [6] though they deny this. [7] [8]
References
Perhaps
GRuban is interested in taking a swing at it.
Psiĥedelisto (
talk •
contribs) please always
ping!
19:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Rothschild told me they'd see if their editor was interested. In the mean time...:
As QAnon relies on a tripcode to verify themselves, and the tripcode is verified by 8chan's server and not reproducible on other imageboards, QAnon was not able to post when the website went down following the El Paso shooting. [1] This apparent conflict of interest, combined with statements by 8chan's founder Fredrick Brennan, Jim Watkins' use of a "Q" collar pin, and Watkins' financial interest in a QAnon super PAC which advertises on 8chan have led to widespread speculation that either Watkins or his son, 8chan's administrator Ron Watkins, knows the identity of QAnon. [2] [3] Both deny knowing "Q"'s identity. [2] [4]
References
@ HandThatFeeds: Thoughts? I've cleaned up the WP:SYNTH and stuck to the major sources. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This info is incorrect and inaccurate. Comes across as far left propaganda trying to discredit a legit movement. 2601:280:4700:1277:F144:C5C5:5D8A:67E ( talk) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Really, no information?? 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:B131:DF:A9A7:7AD6 ( talk) 05:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
There is now a network of independent churches who use QAnon as their lens for interpreting the Bible [21]. This seems worth mentioning, especially since the group’s spiritual advisor is the same guy the film The Trump Prophecy was made about. 97.116.88.75 ( talk) 14:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Qanon is a factual movement and opposition force against the globalist takeover of the world. 69.132.218.109 ( talk) 15:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove conspiracy theorie from the title-proof-> MILITARY INTELLIGENCE TEAM MILITARY INTELLIGENCE BATTALION (STRATEGIC SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE) MIL INTELL BRIGADE DESIGNATION _ MI BRIGADE (STRAT SIGINT) 32536AA00: _ MI TM (UTAH)(STRAT SIGINT) 32536AB00: _ MI TM (OCMC)(STRAT SIGINT) 32536AC00: _ MI TM (DET A)(STRAT SIGINT) Q
Abvously know one has read the beginning, fact check your sources please. 75.108.242.56 ( talk) 19:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
It is most annoying when a writer is trying to make a point and they use a FRENCH word while trying to communicate in English. Please, please, please keep your French to yourself and let us know what you are TRYING to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.67.206 ( talk) 21:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Guy,you are a very naughty boy! Hilarious, but VERY naughty... FillsHerTease ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)