![]() | 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 |
The line "Psychologists attribute finding a conspiracy where there is none to a condition called illusory pattern perception" was, at some point, boldly edited into this article.
I contended that this line is irrelevant in this article about a particular conspiracy theory and would be more appropriate in the general conspiracy theory article. As such I reverted it.
Instead of discussing per WP:BRD guidelines, user Beyond_My_Ken has unfortunately performed multiple reverts in order to keep this information in the article. Respectfully, I would suggest that we seek consensus here per the recommended guidelines. As such, I am taking it upon myself to seek consensus on this issue here. Thank you.
His argument (given in the edit description) was, "If it applies to comspiracy theories, then it applies to QAnon, and would be appropriate in any article abut a consoiracy theory." By this logic, we would include this line in literally every article about every single conspiracy theory. Respectfully, I'd posit that this just doesn't make sense and isn't the way encyclopedias work. Let's discuss. CelebrateMotivation ( talk) 15:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Psychologists attribute finding a conspiracy where there is none to a condition called illusory pattern perception. [1] [2]
References
I notice that a the following references are present in both citations and the further reading section:
Is there any particular reason for this? Are they really good introductions? By WP:ELNO #1, already cited items should generally not be linked out. However, I think there is an exception in this case due to the huge number of references; highlighting the best seems reasonable. Jlevi ( talk) 02:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Right now, there is an incredible amount of detailed content on this page. I think the fact that a lot of these details have been pushed into a 'reactions' and 'incidents' section at the bottom demonstrates that it is unclear how to appropriately integrate this material.
A possible solution? Don't integrate it here! In order to better re-orient this page to better answer the five Ws, rather than to just serve as a catalogue of Q-related events, I suggest moving some of this material to a list or two.
Some options for suitable lists include the following:
- List of QAnon political candidates. Reasonable selection criteria might include winning a primary or appearing on a ballot. Examples of this kind of collection appearing in sources are: [1] [2] [3]
- List of perspectives on Qanon. The 'Reactions' section of the page seems rather odd. It seems like we could better accommodate the information in this section by making a list of cases in which secondary sources have highlighted particular perspectives, and then linking out to that list from the 'Analysis' section in this article.
- Finally, List of Qanon-related stuff. I think there is probably a good argument for moving a lot of the overly detailed bits and pieces out of this article quickly rather than carefully. Given that this is an extremely high-visibility article, it might be worth making a page that works well enough for now, and then handling the exact details of that page later.
I think that much of this material is valuable, but that it distracts from the page, and I hope to find a more useful home for it.
Is my diagnosis correct about the article as it stands? Would any specific lists make sense? Would a general list be a good option for now?
Jlevi ( talk) 23:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I notice that the article is in several "hoax" categories. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't a hoax a thing that someone at the center knows is essentially untrue? So we really know that about QAnon? Isn't it just as possible that the central figures behind its creation and initial dissemination actually believed what they were saying was true? I guess what I'm saying is that although we know that it's a conspiracy theory, because of the total lack of evidence and the generally screwiness of it all, we can't really know that it's a hoax until the riddle is solved and the genesis of QAnon is revealed, if it ever is.
Thoughts about whether the categories are appropriate or not?
Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I noticed some back-and-forth on edits to the lead sentence, and wondered if this compromise sentence would help? QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory that alleges a secret plot by a "deep state" against...
? If we promote "alleged" (adjective) to "alleges" (verb) and retire "detailing", I think it gives a clearer lead while still establishing the fanciful paranoia of the org. And a "deep state" (as opposed to the "deep state") seems to establish it isn't a real thing.
Schazjmd
(talk)
16:13, 17 July 2020 (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.
Using Washington Post as a source to describe QAnon is like using Fox News as a source to describe the DNC. Beyond strange that the quotes in the lead are from hard left publications such as New York Times (who were just caught trying to dox a conservative news anchor), ThinkProgress (which was a radical progressive outlet), and BuzzFeed News (who peddled a false anti-Trump dossier for years).
I know Wikipedia is a hard left platform, but you can at least pretend to stay balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.63.90 ( talk) 08:16, 22 July 2020 (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.
Im surprised this hasnt been posted yet, but its obvious that Q does not have a clearance due to his complete lack of knowledge about clearances.
He claims to have a Q clearance, which his name comes from. But this is a nuclear clearance, not a political clearance, and he would not have access to any political information.
This alone shows that he has no knowledge of clearances and no access to classified information. In fact, he did not even bother to google it.
This is definitive proof that he is a fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B140:41F5:90F:34BC:E0DF:D6E8 ( talk) 23:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
When I encountered this article, I see many contentious words such as “false” and “falsely”. I think this violates WP:NPOV. A reader should already know it is a conspiracy theory so using those words only adds bias. I propose removal of these words. Manabimasu ( talk) 18:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
When, and via what investigative body, was any of the child trafficking allegations proven false? News reporters nervously laughing something off does not debunk the allegations. A few celebrities denying wrongdoing does not debunk the allegations. Without a formal, thorough, and complete investigation, who's to say the allegations are false? The news surround Epstein and Maxwell sure makes it look questionable. If someone within wikipedia has knowledge specifically related to the truth, or lack there of, regarding these claims, they need to come forward to the FBI, not just deny some claim on this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalepmay ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Reading the article, perhaps the unqualified “falsely accused” is a little strong?
I say this with the purest of intentions: we don’t know whether these accusations are true. Common sense says they are false. They are almost certainly false; however we don’t know that for certain without a trial.
I propose the addition of a qualifying word, such as “presumably”, or a rephrasing. AndrewKkh ( talk) 12:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Head of NYPD union gives Fox News interview with QAnon mug in background Head of NYPD union gives Fox News interview with QAnon mug in background Marshall Cohen By Marshall Cohen, CNN Talkingtoyouman ( talk) 00:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
This Wiki article is extremely biased... CJ WiKi 108 02:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ WiKi 108 ( talk • contribs)
The provision of "obvious source material" being required is ridiculous - and that is not an emotional response but a calm observation of the issue. Qanon is not only a substantially demonstrative platform for Trump followers who elected him because he promised to expose the swamp - also known as the deep state - but it is also a platform for those who are not Trump supporters to uncover and learn of what as become a clear, demonstrative undermining of individual liberties and the rule of law.
For Wikipedia to state that there is no proof of a conspiracy is nothing more than confirmation bias. What do you think that has been going on in the Federal Court system over the past several years that would never have been uncovered if it were not for Judicial Watch lawsuits? Anyone in possession of their faculties can see that there has been a conspiracy by a group of people operating in secret to deny US citizens of their individual liberties. Hiding Bengazi, Clinton eMail servers, the MSM Bias to destroy the Trump presidency, obvious criminal set ups by the FBI, one of which is the recent charges against General Flynn, and more. Thank God I did not support WikiPedia when they were asking for money. You can bet that I will lobby heavily against anyone to support them in the future.
One other thing I'd like to mention. WikiPedia has NEVER been considered a valid or reliable source of information. That reason alone is enough to remove it from Youtube - another entity that is censoring free speech. WikiPedia is, has been observed, a very biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:98A0:E870:911D:E1C1:FA97:78B8 ( talk) 09:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
This article says Q has "falsely" accused hollywood actors, politicians, etc of being part of an international child sex trafficking operation. No evidence is cited proving that these claims are false. I don't believe any investigation has been done regarding all of these claims, to say whether or not these claims are false. With the public knowledge surrounding Epstein and Maxwell, I feel this claim at least deserves to be reported neutrally, as opposed to saying it is a false claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalepmay ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Things have not been proven false or true, so therefore Wikipedia editors should not be passing judgement. "Unproven" is a better word than "Falsely" 2600:1700:2196:2A60:6168:D392:DE34:39DD ( talk) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
they are for trump not against him, this is miss information 82.11.10.78 ( talk) 22:20, 27 July 2020 (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.
What details do they agree about?
Generally they all believe that Donald Trump is fighting against a secretive and evil global cabal, members of which include former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the billionaire liberal philanthropist George Soros, TheDrOctagon ( talk) 07:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
This article uses many quotes and info, from Media Matters...They write and then pass out the talking points to news rooms and websites everyday. Go from channel and channel you’ll notice they speak the same words an descriptions verbatim. I’ve found Media Matters to be biased and untruthful. Because i’ve researched this subject and now post this - my comment will be deleted.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B021:4B8A:44FA:835D:3895:5C55 ( talk) 03:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
They write and then pass out the talking points to news rooms and websites everyday. Go from channel and channel you’ll notice they speak the same words an descriptions verbatimor that MM is untruthful. soibangla ( talk) 17:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
"This apparent conflict of interest, combined with statements by 8chan's founder Fredrick Brennan, the use of a "Q" collar pin by 8chan owner Jim Watkins, 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 Q.[30][72] Both deny knowing "Q"'s identity.[30][73]" "Apparent", "widespread speculation" "Both deny" - This seems to exist merely as a writer's opinion based on observations. The opinion is denied, so why is this opinion here published? Both should be removed. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winklebean ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I'm trying to add a Table of Contents limit ( Template:TOC limit). However, whenever I do, it causes the Background and Pizzagate sections to not display content correctly, and I have no idea why. Does anyone get why this is happening? I think it would be good to limit the ToC so the long list of 'Incidents' don't appear individually. Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to explain where conspiracy messages are spread as a section but also in the lede, this would include Facebook etc, there are a huge number of reliable sources explaining this, here is one just from today
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/11/qanon-facebook-groups-growing-conspiracy-theory
John Cummings ( talk) 11:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I recently reverted an by CarlPhilippTrump.me because I didn't think the sourcing was strong enough for the lead. The claim was that the QAnon community spends a lot of time on Epstein, and the source says: "An active subsection of Q followers probes the Jeffrey Epstein case." Since this is the only sentence that touches on Epstein in the source, I reverted for due weight reasons.
However, the relationship between QAnon and the Epstein case seems potentially worth discussing based on sourcing that compares the two: [4] [5].
Note, though, that this sourcing leaves unclear how exactly the Q community fits Epstein into their worldview. It seems like they don't really engage with it on its own terms, but rather just map Q beliefs onto it. Jlevi ( talk) 22:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This needs a header to state that it is an opinion piece. 154.115.159.122 ( talk) 07:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article, which holds the Google snippet, says QAnon is an anti-Trump conspiracy theory organization which is inaccurate. QAnon is pro-Trump. Please update "anti-Trump" to what the research shows, that it is pro-Trump. 70.105.242.100 ( talk) 09:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory detailing a supposed secret plot by an alleged "deep state" against U.S. President Donald Trump and his supporters.. Guy ( help! - typo?) 10:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about QAnon. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about QAnon at the Reference desk. (additional comments) |
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is obviously biased. Sad to see you all going the way of Google, YouTube and Snopes. Just kidding - none of them started out unbiased. You did though. Bye bye. 173.175.98.165 ( talk) 14:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Although Q'anon is a conspiracy theory, it is not a far-right conspiracy theory. It is very scary that only "established editors" can change this page. Did they go to colleges like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton? I have a journalism degree from Central Michigan University. Thank you. Funkmastafrank ( talk) 17:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This has been debated ad nauseam here, with reasons given for why it is a "far-right conspiracy theory". –
Muboshgu (
talk)
17:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)You only need to make ten edits to gain semi-protected access on Wikipedia, it's not run by some elite group who adhere to their own beliefs. Azaan Habib 19:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
One line in the "False claims and beliefs" section reads "QAnon theorists have touted drinking bleach (known as MMS, or Miracle Mineral Solution) as a "miracle cure" for COVID-19.". While chlorine dioxide, known in pseudoscience circles as MMS, is an industrial bleaching agent, the phrasing implies that they advocate drinking household hypochlorite bleach, which is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.92.57 ( talk) 12:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree this is misleading amd.should be corrected. Cubix1990 ( talk) 11:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I think a few more "false" and "disproven" need to be added to the lead section. It does not go far enough to state how truly discredited these theories are. Words such as "supposed" and "alleged" are simply not enough. We need more "falsely accused". Another example, it should be "Q also falsely claimed that Trump feigned collusion with Russians ... ". --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Given repeated attempts to re-open accusations of nuisance edits and left-wing media bias (must be all those Rethinking Marxism citations), I would like to open a discussion on whether Talk:QAnon merits semi-protected status. Johncdraper ( talk) 17:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Article says, for example, Q: Its proponents have been called "a deranged conspiracy cult"[16] and "some of the Internet's most outré Trump fans".[37] /Q
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 2nd sentence is not correct and should be removed: "No part of the theory has been shown to be based in fact.". Even though there is a reference, it is factually incorrect. Epstein was in Q theory before proven, and was correct. BeerisproofGodlovesU ( talk) 04:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Epstein was not a conspiracy theory, everyone already knew he ran a pedophile gang and several Democrat politicians were involved, around ten years before this conspiracy theory was created. QAnon built on Epstein and claimed a large section of the deep state was involved with him, the conspiracy theory was not Epstein being a pedophile, but pedophiles, including Epstein, running the country. This of course is not true. Azaan Habib 11:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second sentence in the article, No part of the theory is based on fact", needs to be removed because it is both a supposition and is not supported by the quoted source, which is itself an opinion article, with no supportive evidence given. 66.128.245.149 ( talk) 14:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I was talking to someone that subscribes to many current CTs (Covid-19 exaggerated for reasons of political control, and heading down the rabbit hole from there). Their claim was that QAnon is actually a deliberate attempt (by the "global elite", etc.) to discredit the "real" conspiracy theories. Anyone come across that, or got a cite? Worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 ( talk) 21:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
BuzzFeed News has decided that "conspiracy theory" is too simplistic to describe QAnon, so they're now going to refer to it as a "collective delusion" and/or "mass delusion". Unlikely other media outlets will go in that direction as well, but dropping the link here just in case. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I removed the name of a person identified by Logically.ai as supposedly a key QAnon figure. This isn't a notable person, and this is a single source making the claim. I think before we put the name of a person in connection with a notorious movement, we should wait until it's widely reported by reliable sources. Readers can still click through to the source to read the details of their investigation. Schazjmd (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Gelinas belongs in § Identity of "Q". He's certainly an important part of this story, he owned the largest "Q drop" republishing website, but even Logically.ai said that this doesn't mean he's Q. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The QAnon wasn't really a conspiracy theory group and was really an online trolling campaign directed by 4chan to get Donald Trump elected, in which they were successful in doing, may I suggest in correcting that? Failsafe Ziprar ( talk) 23:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Can I suggest new section is created for QAnon in the UK? It is becoming very popular but is quite different to the US in terms of who are 'believers' and also what they believe, it includes a lot more spiritual healing, Brexit, 5G causes COVID, 'paedophile hunters' here and not very much about Trump. I'm not sure quite how it would fit into the existing structure of the article which seems entirely US focused for obvious reasons. Here's some references:
I really don't know the topic well but it seems important to include this information.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 19:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
It might not be "encyclopedic" but it would be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 17:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
From the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a RS:
Valjean ( talk) 01:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Just delete the whole damn thing. Biased garbage. 38.117.232.129 ( talk) 11:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC) — 38.117.232.129 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I mean, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article got deleted, why not delete this too for some fun? I assume it's because the QAnon theory is much more absurd that the Cultural Marxism theory, and so there is no risk of people reading the theories from Wikipedia and believing them, which isn't exactly good ground for deleting an article. Azaan Habib 11:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Tyler Cowen's most recent column references this article, specifically to question the controversial second sentence. Bzweebl ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Bzweebl:, if we decide to include something about this, we could at most include a sentence stating that "Tyler Cohen believes that QAnon believers...", in line with our usual practice when including properly-sourced and -attributed opinions. Please propose the wording you'd like to see in the article. Then we can make a decision. Otherwise, this is just forum stuff and should stop. -- Valjean ( talk) 21:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I have read the entire page believing the initial paragraph about «leading to a "day of reckoning" involving the mass arrest of journalists and politicians.» was talking about arresting right-wing journalists, but after a minute looking at actual Qanon content, it seems this was actually meant to talk about arresting left-wing journalists. Essentially I read this as "day of reckoning" as something bad the Qanon people were expecting to happen but not looking forward to, instead of something good they are looking forward to ( which I now realize is the case ). I think this deserves a bit of clarification. Arthurwolf~enwiki ( talk) 19:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
This recent salon.com article connects the narrative of today's Qanon to the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations some decades ago. The journalist may have gotten this idea from Qanon-ers that cite it and claim it was the "Franklin Coverup" and incorporate it into their conspiracy. I think the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations should either be mentioned in the article or go into the See also section.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 21:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
This Bloomberg article might be useful for the page. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 22:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The background section feels out of place as it jumps into a summery of Pizzagate right away. I feel it needs a bit of a lead in. Thoughts? blindlynx ( talk) 11:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
IT seems odd that it was reported as far back as 2018 by NBC that there is video evidence of the person known widely as "pamphlet anon", Coleman Rogers logging into Q's tripcode but his name is not floated anywhere else as a possible identity of "Q" https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531; specifically the section
"One archived livestream appears to show Rogers logging into the 8chan account of “Q.”The Patriots’ Soapbox feed quickly cuts out after the login attempt. “Sorry, leg cramp,” Rogers says, before the feed reappears seconds later.
Users in the associated chatroom begin to wonder if Rogers had accidentally revealed his identity as Q. “How did you post as Q?” one user wrote.
In another livestreamed video, Rogers begins to analyze a supposed “Q” post on his livestream program when his co-host points out that the post in question doesn’t actually appear on Q’s feed and was authored anonymously. Rogers’ explanation — that Q must have forgotten to sign in before posting — was criticized as extremely unlikely by people familiar with the message boards, as it would require knowledge of the posting to pick it out among hundreds of other anonymous ones."
slrry if my format is wrong it's been 10 years since I edited something on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8200:2600:5017:7F0B:B05E:9B29 ( talk) 06:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Article makes heavy use of weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superpacket ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion started here and got archived.
These sources got collected in the linked discussion:
And here are more links on the religious angle on QAnon that has developed in a lot of reliable sources:
Jlevi ( talk) 11:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to point out that the cabal that Donald Trump fights is also stated to be New World Order-ian. Aertgan ( talk) 11:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The info in this article is organized a little haphazardly, making it hard to follow from start to finish. I'd boldly change it myself but I don't want to barge in if there's some logic I'm missing. So I'd like to recommend reorganizing/resectioning it as follows: (1) Start with Background, prior conspiracies, milieu, anything the reader needs to know upfront before reading the theory itself, (2) "Theory and claims" combining the "false claims" section from below as there's no difference between the theory and the claims, (3) "Origins and spread" tracking its growth into mainstream popularity, (4) Identity, (5) not sure what to do with the rest aside from reducing the number of sections and proseline but I can give it more thought if that would be helpful. czar 18:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
"YouTube bans QAnon, other conspiracy content that targets individuals"
It's rather narrowly worded though:
“On the one hand, it is certainly more aggressive than their current harassment or conspiracy theory policies,” Lewis said. “On the other hand, by only prohibiting conspiratorial content that specifically targets other individuals or groups, it may leave huge amounts of leeway for QAnon content to continue to thrive.”
Would definitely fit into this article. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The inclusion of this film in the "See Also" section and the brief description of it frames the very widespread criticism of the film as part of QAnon. The film has been criticised by very many people with no relation to QAnon for it's sexualisation of children and linking that criticism to QAnon seems like a dishonest way to try and discredit critics of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.199.53 ( talk) 11:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Your feelings about the film and your opinion that the sexualisation of children is justifiable as some kind of ironic critique really isn't relevant, where is your evidence that QAnon was the first source to criticize the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.176.163 ( talk) 23:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Shouldn't QAnon be reclassified as a "Movement" not a "Conspiracy Theory?" 47.202.170.15 ( talk) 16:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
This may be relevant: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/tech/qanon-believer-how-he-got-out/index.html 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C ( talk) 21:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Would a list of QAnon's failed predictions be a useful addition to the article? There are credible sources that have listed QAnon's failures, for example this Daily Dot article QAnon Failed Predictions (The Daily Dot is considered "generally reliable for Internet culture" according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources).-- Shimbo ( talk) 09:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Even cursory analysis of the patch on the sheriff’s uniform would show that it is a Deadpool patch. Memorabilia from the Marvel Character Deadpool. Jedimedic77 ( talk) 08:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has run its course, but keeps attracting new comments about other commenters word choice. If there are new concerns about the wording of the article, please start a new section to discuss them. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 23:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't believe for a second that there are is any factual basis for anything that qanon has said. But this article has a tone which is diminishing to Wikipedia. It is hard to explain, but as an example, one can listen to a news article that reports on the same facts as reported by, say, NPR, the BBC and Fox News. NPR and Fox will use a tone that presumes that their listeners have a viewpoint and which, to a certain extent, will denigrate anyone with an opposing viewpoint. The BBC will can produce a news article that reports the same facts, but which doesn't put out the attitude that "you are stupid of you don't agree with me". Now, think about this for a minute. Even if you are a strong believer in a viewpoint that can't be supported, an attack is less likely to change your mind than a well reasoned, supported article. This article seems to flop back and forth between a political screed and a well supported article. I guess that I feel that this article needs to be heavily edited. Leave in the time line. Leave in the facts. Take out the slant. Surely the facts speak for themselves, and as it sits, it will make a believer just lump Wikipedia with the "liberal mainstream media". Simicich ( talk) 22:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Using the word "lies" in the tone it's used in sounds more like a Facebook post than an encyclopedia article. Who writes articles like that? It's like childish accusations and name-calling or something instead of presenting facts in a dignified manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.107.33 ( talk) 15:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
"No part of the theory is based on fact." This stamement is an opinion, not a fact. The reason why it is so is not in the references used as sources for this statement, but the way this statement is phrased. You see, when someone invents a theory, they base it on some facts. Otherwise it is a fiction, not a theory. So, is QAnon a conspircy theory, or is it not? If it is, then it is based at least on one fact, and that is a fact. Can you follow? So, please, remove this statement or rephrase this idea in such a way that it becomes a valid statement, like this: "Little proof has been found to support this theory". Or: "Some regard this theory as pure fiction". These statements prevent False balance while still maintaining neutral, encyclopedic tone. ENDrain ( talk) 22:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC) — ENDrain ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
'Hey, there is this verifyable fact, and here is my fictional narrative that connects/explains/builds up on that fact' - this is how a conspiracy theory usually starts. The theory itself, it couldn't have existed without a fact to be based onto. It would've been pure fiction otherwise, a made-up story about made-up facts based on concepts that exist IRL. You can't have "theory" and "no part is based on facts" in one sentence, it's a paradox. When put this way it sounds biased. This conspiracy theory is in fact pure fiction? Ok: "Known as a conspiracy theory, QAnon is in fact a work of pure fiction as it is not based neither does it reference any facts". ENDrain ( talk) 22:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC) — ENDrain ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
As someone not inclined to believe such theories. I'd heard this thing mentioned over and over in the media and finally came over here to figure out what they were talking about. I was kind of insulted by the tone of this article as well. It definitely is not written from WP:NPOV. It feels like the author of the article is more concerned with persuading the reader that the theory is false than accurately describing theory itself. For example Chemtrail conspiracy theory spends a good deal of space describing what the theory is exactly and what reasons people might have to believe the theory. I'm not asking for this article to present positive reasons to believe the theory, but I would like to at least come away with a sense of what the theory is and why these people believe it; and as it stands, this article doesn't do that. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 03:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need to make a edit to replace sentence "and plotting against President Donald Trump" to now read "and plotting to support President Donald Trump" Lil playa408 ( talk) 11:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed recently that some media sources are going ahead and calling this movement a cult. CNN NBC Rolling Stone Open Democracy WGBH just to name a few. Belief in a mysterious oracle, a rotating cast of illuminated ones who interpret the prophecies for the faithful, the utter inability to recognize when they were entirely wrong about something. Sounds like a cult to me. I think it may be worth mentioning at the very least that they are increasingly seen and referred to as a cult. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
"According to analysis conducted by Media Matters for America, as of August 2020, Trump had amplified QAnon messaging at least 216 times by retweeting or mentioning 129 QAnon-affiliated Twitter accounts, sometimes multiple times a day."
This should now be changed to: As Of October 2020, 258 times via at least 150 QAnon-affiliated accounts. Source: Footnote QuantumWasp ( talk) 15:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The first graf in this section looks a bit WP:ORish to me. Yes, one source does link QAnon to The Paranoid Style in American Politics, but it's one paragraph in a listicle. The second sentence also reads like a literature essay. What do others think? I am not well-versed in the QAnon mythos, so it's possible that this analysis is quite on-point/encyclopedic, but I'm not seeing it at the moment. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 21:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
According to Alexander Reid Ross, doctoral fellow at the Center for the Analysis of the Radical Right, QAnon is..." -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2020 media platform YouTube enacted a policy to stop the spread of misleading and dangerous information by prohibiting QAnon promoting content. Several [1] Frazzeledferret ( talk) 17:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Overall I think the intro gives a good overview of the theory, however I think the statement "No part of the theory is based on fact." is a bit blunt and un-informative and could be improved. I think the approach by the Pizzagate conspiracy theory seems much more informative which states "It has been extensively discredited by a wide range of organizations, including the Washington, D.C. police." since it clearly states the same information but also provides the reader with information of which organizations have discredited the theory. As a reader I think this type of information should actually be upfront and not hidden in the footnotes. Unlike many other conspiracy theories where it is very difficult to source and find credible people who spend time debunking the theory, this is a case where this is quite easy and there are many credible sources who have spent time to debunk the theory, so I think we should lead with that. I would therefore suggest to change "No part of the theory is based on fact." to "It has been extensively discredited by a wide range of organizations, including the FBI, which has labelled it a potential source of domestic terrorism." with the bold part of the sentence up for debate since this assessment is discussed further down in the 4th paragraph. Best regards. -- hroest 14:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Doing that would just make those entities mega-targets for Qanon abuse. Besides any list of orgs or people who consider it to be a fact that Qanon is idiotic nonsense would have to include everyone on the planet who isn't one of the Qanon sheeple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 ( talk) 05:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article is very well sourced, however some of the current phrasing feels editorialized and biased. I've highlighted the phrases that I think should be reformed to more neutral language, and perhaps adding detail from footnotes into the text. Also added some parts that I think need to be improved overall.
"At an August 2019 rally, a man warming up the crowd before Trump spoke used the QAnon motto": sentence doesn't make grammatical sense."
This sentence is grammatically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 ( talk) 05:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
QAnon is clearly poisonous bullshit. But there is an issue of free speech. Should they be allowed to say these things or should there be arbiters of truth that ban unpalatable views? There has been some discussion on this that would be good to see in the article. The section at the end talking about reactions by some social media is good, but I think this line could be developed further by an expert. To me, it is a key point -- how does a democratic society deal with things like QAnon? Tuntable ( talk) 06:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
"...But there is an issue of free speech". So you say in your second sentence, and then fail to provide any example of free speech being an issue in the rest of your paragraph. The fact is there is no issue of free speech regarding QAnon because no government entity has ever censored them, in fact, with Trump the opposite is the case. The very existence of Qanon is proof that free speech is as robust as it ever has been. What you may be referring to is private companies (Twitter, Facebook, Jimbo's Gas Station, etc) deciding they don't need to provide access to their facilities to people who do things like spray painting swastikas all over those facilities. If you think 'free speech' should mean something else, then take it up with the page on 'free speech'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 ( talk) 06:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Patreon has announced today that they will ban Q-Anon accounts as well: https://www.businessinsider.com/patreon-bans-qanon-conspiracy-theory-users-latest-tech-company-2020-10 IHateAccounts ( talk) 23:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the first line to say “Not to be confused with Qanun” instead of “For the instrument, see Qanun (instrument)” thank you 2600:6C64:6C7F:37D4:A556:A40C:F2BE:6DA1 ( talk) 23:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to delete this article because it promotes fake news. Jabpiz ( talk) 06:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
QAnon doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory; it sounds like a parody of a conspiracy theory. And it started on 4chan and 8chan, which are full of trolls, not conspiracy theorists. I for one would appreciate some attempt to guess how many people QAnon "supporters" are just doing it for the lulz. This is important in order to decide how much of a threat it poses and how to oppose it. Arguing against it using reason will only encourage trolls. Philgoetz ( talk) 05:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
reported that three people took the original Q post and spread it across multiple media platforms to build an internet following. QAnon was preceded by several similar anonymous 4chan posters, such as FBIAnon, HLIAnon (High-Level Insider), CIAAnon, and WH Insider Anon. Sxologist ( talk) 02:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Not going to edit, but [8] Doug Weller talk 18:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section on Mike Pence's comments, the link on the administration's role in "giving oxygen" to the theory is broken. This can be resolved by either (1) removing the link or (2) redirecting the link to QAnon#Donald Trump. -- zaiisao ( talk | contribs) 06:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Solid source about QAnon's reaction to the results of the recent presidential election from the New York Times: "Shocked by Trump’s Loss, QAnon Struggles to Keep the Faith". I'd add something about it myself, but I'm not sure which section would be most appropriate (or perhaps if a new one should be created?) Thoughts? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
[11] - mentions a Charlie Ward (also see [12]) and Martin Geddes " a computer scientist from Staines, being one of the most popular QAnon influencers in the world". They also discuss David Icke's role in laying the groundwork. They also did a survey of support in the UK. [13] Doug Weller talk 15:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone! Lurking admin here. Thanks to everyone who works tirelessly to maintain this article and all the drama, complexity and emotion that comes with it. I just want to encourage folks to visit WP:DONTBITE for a gentle reminder on keeping it civil and being friendly with newbies. (And I say this as someone who disagrees with all things QAnon!) Also feel free to refer people to WP:Teahouse to get further clarification and information. Our team of volunteers there are well trained at being friendly and patient. Thanks again everyone - you are appreciated! Missvain ( talk) 15:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the word "baseless" has an aura of "factual information". Even though several of the references include the word "baseless", that does not support the use of the word within the article. "Fringe", "far-right", "controversial", etc. are appropriate replacements.
Reference #36 has no mention of QAnon. The only connection appears to be the fact that the subject of #36 is Rosanne Barr, and in reference #37 Rosanne mentions QAnon.
FringeRider ( talk) 14:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Throughout this article the word "theory" is used instead of "conspiracy theory". Let's be clear, QAnon is not a theory, by any stretch of the imagination, it's Class A bullshit. We should be using either conspiracy theory (which has a clear and specific meaning), or QAnon, but definitely not theory. Acousmana ( talk) 16:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
No doubt there are far more failed predictions than true predictions, but why are only the former listed?
If there are no successful predictions, is the section name (false predictions, claims and beliefs) appropriate? It seems important to emphasise that the majority of predictions have failed upfront, but at the same time, some indication of Q's successes (if any) seems important too.
If there have been successful predictions, some indication of the success rate would provide further information about:
A stopped clock is right once a day; a propagandist is going to be correct more often than a crazy person (and so Q's accuracy says something about Q and their posts, even if it is not very high).— Preceding unsigned comment added by N4ut1lu5354r3c00l ( talk • contribs) 02:17, November 24, 2020 (UTC)
Sources:
I'm not sure if this should go into the "Usage of #SaveTheChildren and Freedom for the Children" section or be its own section. Asking for input and help on wording from others. IHateAccounts ( talk) 01:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Drmies: @ GorillaWarfare: I noticed that these (Wired article, Financial Times video segment) aren't reflected here.
I think they may have some points to offer, related to how the QAnon conspiracy theory is structured and operates. IHateAccounts ( talk) 16:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
First: Wow. I have never seen a article with so many guidelines or what ever it is called.
Besides that, it would be reasonable to link to give people a possibility to see what the article is actually about.
And I must say that the article gives a nervous impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.232.169.174 ( talk) 09:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I am bringing this edit here for discussion. As I read the first paragraph, it does not specifically document any link that QAnon had with harassing Jim Acosta. The second paragraph simply documents an evasive response from the White House. Unless there is further detail in other sources, I don't understand the rationale for including this section. NorthBySouthBaranof disagrees. Let's discuss. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 01:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The Swiss Company OrphaAnalytics is currently analyzing texts from several suspects, including Jim and Ron Watkins Source - Cocovfefe ( talk) 11:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Qanon is a cult 93.109.187.42 ( talk) 12:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm leaving this here to ask editors involved here if they could have a look at an edit request at the talk page here: Talk:Kate Shemirani#Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2020, which asks a question about QAnon. If anyone could give a better answer than I did, that would be much appreciated, thanks! Seagull123 Φ 00:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The picture doesn't self explain (the pic about a SWAT member). I was thinking put a logo of Qanon movement, because it makes a reference and reconnaissance work. The actual picture is ambiguous and you don't understand it if you don't read the image caption. Mirlo Nuncira ( talk) 21:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I know I can't even edit this but dont you think this should be on extended confirmed protection because of it controversy, same with the [ boys] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flahrdahgeorgiah ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Is Trump still fighting the cabal from Palm Beach? I don't know how to confirm or deny this, but I assumed his campaign against the Deep State "ended" when he left office? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 04:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe he's looking for the cabal on a local Florida golf course, with OJ?
![]() | 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 |
The line "Psychologists attribute finding a conspiracy where there is none to a condition called illusory pattern perception" was, at some point, boldly edited into this article.
I contended that this line is irrelevant in this article about a particular conspiracy theory and would be more appropriate in the general conspiracy theory article. As such I reverted it.
Instead of discussing per WP:BRD guidelines, user Beyond_My_Ken has unfortunately performed multiple reverts in order to keep this information in the article. Respectfully, I would suggest that we seek consensus here per the recommended guidelines. As such, I am taking it upon myself to seek consensus on this issue here. Thank you.
His argument (given in the edit description) was, "If it applies to comspiracy theories, then it applies to QAnon, and would be appropriate in any article abut a consoiracy theory." By this logic, we would include this line in literally every article about every single conspiracy theory. Respectfully, I'd posit that this just doesn't make sense and isn't the way encyclopedias work. Let's discuss. CelebrateMotivation ( talk) 15:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Psychologists attribute finding a conspiracy where there is none to a condition called illusory pattern perception. [1] [2]
References
I notice that a the following references are present in both citations and the further reading section:
Is there any particular reason for this? Are they really good introductions? By WP:ELNO #1, already cited items should generally not be linked out. However, I think there is an exception in this case due to the huge number of references; highlighting the best seems reasonable. Jlevi ( talk) 02:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Right now, there is an incredible amount of detailed content on this page. I think the fact that a lot of these details have been pushed into a 'reactions' and 'incidents' section at the bottom demonstrates that it is unclear how to appropriately integrate this material.
A possible solution? Don't integrate it here! In order to better re-orient this page to better answer the five Ws, rather than to just serve as a catalogue of Q-related events, I suggest moving some of this material to a list or two.
Some options for suitable lists include the following:
- List of QAnon political candidates. Reasonable selection criteria might include winning a primary or appearing on a ballot. Examples of this kind of collection appearing in sources are: [1] [2] [3]
- List of perspectives on Qanon. The 'Reactions' section of the page seems rather odd. It seems like we could better accommodate the information in this section by making a list of cases in which secondary sources have highlighted particular perspectives, and then linking out to that list from the 'Analysis' section in this article.
- Finally, List of Qanon-related stuff. I think there is probably a good argument for moving a lot of the overly detailed bits and pieces out of this article quickly rather than carefully. Given that this is an extremely high-visibility article, it might be worth making a page that works well enough for now, and then handling the exact details of that page later.
I think that much of this material is valuable, but that it distracts from the page, and I hope to find a more useful home for it.
Is my diagnosis correct about the article as it stands? Would any specific lists make sense? Would a general list be a good option for now?
Jlevi ( talk) 23:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I notice that the article is in several "hoax" categories. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't a hoax a thing that someone at the center knows is essentially untrue? So we really know that about QAnon? Isn't it just as possible that the central figures behind its creation and initial dissemination actually believed what they were saying was true? I guess what I'm saying is that although we know that it's a conspiracy theory, because of the total lack of evidence and the generally screwiness of it all, we can't really know that it's a hoax until the riddle is solved and the genesis of QAnon is revealed, if it ever is.
Thoughts about whether the categories are appropriate or not?
Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I noticed some back-and-forth on edits to the lead sentence, and wondered if this compromise sentence would help? QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory that alleges a secret plot by a "deep state" against...
? If we promote "alleged" (adjective) to "alleges" (verb) and retire "detailing", I think it gives a clearer lead while still establishing the fanciful paranoia of the org. And a "deep state" (as opposed to the "deep state") seems to establish it isn't a real thing.
Schazjmd
(talk)
16:13, 17 July 2020 (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.
Using Washington Post as a source to describe QAnon is like using Fox News as a source to describe the DNC. Beyond strange that the quotes in the lead are from hard left publications such as New York Times (who were just caught trying to dox a conservative news anchor), ThinkProgress (which was a radical progressive outlet), and BuzzFeed News (who peddled a false anti-Trump dossier for years).
I know Wikipedia is a hard left platform, but you can at least pretend to stay balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.63.90 ( talk) 08:16, 22 July 2020 (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.
Im surprised this hasnt been posted yet, but its obvious that Q does not have a clearance due to his complete lack of knowledge about clearances.
He claims to have a Q clearance, which his name comes from. But this is a nuclear clearance, not a political clearance, and he would not have access to any political information.
This alone shows that he has no knowledge of clearances and no access to classified information. In fact, he did not even bother to google it.
This is definitive proof that he is a fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B140:41F5:90F:34BC:E0DF:D6E8 ( talk) 23:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
When I encountered this article, I see many contentious words such as “false” and “falsely”. I think this violates WP:NPOV. A reader should already know it is a conspiracy theory so using those words only adds bias. I propose removal of these words. Manabimasu ( talk) 18:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
When, and via what investigative body, was any of the child trafficking allegations proven false? News reporters nervously laughing something off does not debunk the allegations. A few celebrities denying wrongdoing does not debunk the allegations. Without a formal, thorough, and complete investigation, who's to say the allegations are false? The news surround Epstein and Maxwell sure makes it look questionable. If someone within wikipedia has knowledge specifically related to the truth, or lack there of, regarding these claims, they need to come forward to the FBI, not just deny some claim on this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalepmay ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Reading the article, perhaps the unqualified “falsely accused” is a little strong?
I say this with the purest of intentions: we don’t know whether these accusations are true. Common sense says they are false. They are almost certainly false; however we don’t know that for certain without a trial.
I propose the addition of a qualifying word, such as “presumably”, or a rephrasing. AndrewKkh ( talk) 12:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Head of NYPD union gives Fox News interview with QAnon mug in background Head of NYPD union gives Fox News interview with QAnon mug in background Marshall Cohen By Marshall Cohen, CNN Talkingtoyouman ( talk) 00:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
This Wiki article is extremely biased... CJ WiKi 108 02:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ WiKi 108 ( talk • contribs)
The provision of "obvious source material" being required is ridiculous - and that is not an emotional response but a calm observation of the issue. Qanon is not only a substantially demonstrative platform for Trump followers who elected him because he promised to expose the swamp - also known as the deep state - but it is also a platform for those who are not Trump supporters to uncover and learn of what as become a clear, demonstrative undermining of individual liberties and the rule of law.
For Wikipedia to state that there is no proof of a conspiracy is nothing more than confirmation bias. What do you think that has been going on in the Federal Court system over the past several years that would never have been uncovered if it were not for Judicial Watch lawsuits? Anyone in possession of their faculties can see that there has been a conspiracy by a group of people operating in secret to deny US citizens of their individual liberties. Hiding Bengazi, Clinton eMail servers, the MSM Bias to destroy the Trump presidency, obvious criminal set ups by the FBI, one of which is the recent charges against General Flynn, and more. Thank God I did not support WikiPedia when they were asking for money. You can bet that I will lobby heavily against anyone to support them in the future.
One other thing I'd like to mention. WikiPedia has NEVER been considered a valid or reliable source of information. That reason alone is enough to remove it from Youtube - another entity that is censoring free speech. WikiPedia is, has been observed, a very biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:98A0:E870:911D:E1C1:FA97:78B8 ( talk) 09:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
This article says Q has "falsely" accused hollywood actors, politicians, etc of being part of an international child sex trafficking operation. No evidence is cited proving that these claims are false. I don't believe any investigation has been done regarding all of these claims, to say whether or not these claims are false. With the public knowledge surrounding Epstein and Maxwell, I feel this claim at least deserves to be reported neutrally, as opposed to saying it is a false claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalepmay ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Things have not been proven false or true, so therefore Wikipedia editors should not be passing judgement. "Unproven" is a better word than "Falsely" 2600:1700:2196:2A60:6168:D392:DE34:39DD ( talk) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
they are for trump not against him, this is miss information 82.11.10.78 ( talk) 22:20, 27 July 2020 (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.
What details do they agree about?
Generally they all believe that Donald Trump is fighting against a secretive and evil global cabal, members of which include former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the billionaire liberal philanthropist George Soros, TheDrOctagon ( talk) 07:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
This article uses many quotes and info, from Media Matters...They write and then pass out the talking points to news rooms and websites everyday. Go from channel and channel you’ll notice they speak the same words an descriptions verbatim. I’ve found Media Matters to be biased and untruthful. Because i’ve researched this subject and now post this - my comment will be deleted.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B021:4B8A:44FA:835D:3895:5C55 ( talk) 03:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
They write and then pass out the talking points to news rooms and websites everyday. Go from channel and channel you’ll notice they speak the same words an descriptions verbatimor that MM is untruthful. soibangla ( talk) 17:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
"This apparent conflict of interest, combined with statements by 8chan's founder Fredrick Brennan, the use of a "Q" collar pin by 8chan owner Jim Watkins, 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 Q.[30][72] Both deny knowing "Q"'s identity.[30][73]" "Apparent", "widespread speculation" "Both deny" - This seems to exist merely as a writer's opinion based on observations. The opinion is denied, so why is this opinion here published? Both should be removed. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winklebean ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I'm trying to add a Table of Contents limit ( Template:TOC limit). However, whenever I do, it causes the Background and Pizzagate sections to not display content correctly, and I have no idea why. Does anyone get why this is happening? I think it would be good to limit the ToC so the long list of 'Incidents' don't appear individually. Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to explain where conspiracy messages are spread as a section but also in the lede, this would include Facebook etc, there are a huge number of reliable sources explaining this, here is one just from today
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/11/qanon-facebook-groups-growing-conspiracy-theory
John Cummings ( talk) 11:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I recently reverted an by CarlPhilippTrump.me because I didn't think the sourcing was strong enough for the lead. The claim was that the QAnon community spends a lot of time on Epstein, and the source says: "An active subsection of Q followers probes the Jeffrey Epstein case." Since this is the only sentence that touches on Epstein in the source, I reverted for due weight reasons.
However, the relationship between QAnon and the Epstein case seems potentially worth discussing based on sourcing that compares the two: [4] [5].
Note, though, that this sourcing leaves unclear how exactly the Q community fits Epstein into their worldview. It seems like they don't really engage with it on its own terms, but rather just map Q beliefs onto it. Jlevi ( talk) 22:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This needs a header to state that it is an opinion piece. 154.115.159.122 ( talk) 07:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article, which holds the Google snippet, says QAnon is an anti-Trump conspiracy theory organization which is inaccurate. QAnon is pro-Trump. Please update "anti-Trump" to what the research shows, that it is pro-Trump. 70.105.242.100 ( talk) 09:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory detailing a supposed secret plot by an alleged "deep state" against U.S. President Donald Trump and his supporters.. Guy ( help! - typo?) 10:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about QAnon. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about QAnon at the Reference desk. (additional comments) |
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is obviously biased. Sad to see you all going the way of Google, YouTube and Snopes. Just kidding - none of them started out unbiased. You did though. Bye bye. 173.175.98.165 ( talk) 14:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Although Q'anon is a conspiracy theory, it is not a far-right conspiracy theory. It is very scary that only "established editors" can change this page. Did they go to colleges like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton? I have a journalism degree from Central Michigan University. Thank you. Funkmastafrank ( talk) 17:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This has been debated ad nauseam here, with reasons given for why it is a "far-right conspiracy theory". –
Muboshgu (
talk)
17:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)You only need to make ten edits to gain semi-protected access on Wikipedia, it's not run by some elite group who adhere to their own beliefs. Azaan Habib 19:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
One line in the "False claims and beliefs" section reads "QAnon theorists have touted drinking bleach (known as MMS, or Miracle Mineral Solution) as a "miracle cure" for COVID-19.". While chlorine dioxide, known in pseudoscience circles as MMS, is an industrial bleaching agent, the phrasing implies that they advocate drinking household hypochlorite bleach, which is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.92.57 ( talk) 12:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree this is misleading amd.should be corrected. Cubix1990 ( talk) 11:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I think a few more "false" and "disproven" need to be added to the lead section. It does not go far enough to state how truly discredited these theories are. Words such as "supposed" and "alleged" are simply not enough. We need more "falsely accused". Another example, it should be "Q also falsely claimed that Trump feigned collusion with Russians ... ". --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Given repeated attempts to re-open accusations of nuisance edits and left-wing media bias (must be all those Rethinking Marxism citations), I would like to open a discussion on whether Talk:QAnon merits semi-protected status. Johncdraper ( talk) 17:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Article says, for example, Q: Its proponents have been called "a deranged conspiracy cult"[16] and "some of the Internet's most outré Trump fans".[37] /Q
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 2nd sentence is not correct and should be removed: "No part of the theory has been shown to be based in fact.". Even though there is a reference, it is factually incorrect. Epstein was in Q theory before proven, and was correct. BeerisproofGodlovesU ( talk) 04:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Epstein was not a conspiracy theory, everyone already knew he ran a pedophile gang and several Democrat politicians were involved, around ten years before this conspiracy theory was created. QAnon built on Epstein and claimed a large section of the deep state was involved with him, the conspiracy theory was not Epstein being a pedophile, but pedophiles, including Epstein, running the country. This of course is not true. Azaan Habib 11:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second sentence in the article, No part of the theory is based on fact", needs to be removed because it is both a supposition and is not supported by the quoted source, which is itself an opinion article, with no supportive evidence given. 66.128.245.149 ( talk) 14:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I was talking to someone that subscribes to many current CTs (Covid-19 exaggerated for reasons of political control, and heading down the rabbit hole from there). Their claim was that QAnon is actually a deliberate attempt (by the "global elite", etc.) to discredit the "real" conspiracy theories. Anyone come across that, or got a cite? Worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 ( talk) 21:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
BuzzFeed News has decided that "conspiracy theory" is too simplistic to describe QAnon, so they're now going to refer to it as a "collective delusion" and/or "mass delusion". Unlikely other media outlets will go in that direction as well, but dropping the link here just in case. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I removed the name of a person identified by Logically.ai as supposedly a key QAnon figure. This isn't a notable person, and this is a single source making the claim. I think before we put the name of a person in connection with a notorious movement, we should wait until it's widely reported by reliable sources. Readers can still click through to the source to read the details of their investigation. Schazjmd (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Gelinas belongs in § Identity of "Q". He's certainly an important part of this story, he owned the largest "Q drop" republishing website, but even Logically.ai said that this doesn't mean he's Q. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The QAnon wasn't really a conspiracy theory group and was really an online trolling campaign directed by 4chan to get Donald Trump elected, in which they were successful in doing, may I suggest in correcting that? Failsafe Ziprar ( talk) 23:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Can I suggest new section is created for QAnon in the UK? It is becoming very popular but is quite different to the US in terms of who are 'believers' and also what they believe, it includes a lot more spiritual healing, Brexit, 5G causes COVID, 'paedophile hunters' here and not very much about Trump. I'm not sure quite how it would fit into the existing structure of the article which seems entirely US focused for obvious reasons. Here's some references:
I really don't know the topic well but it seems important to include this information.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 19:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
It might not be "encyclopedic" but it would be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.2.200 ( talk) 17:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
From the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a RS:
Valjean ( talk) 01:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Just delete the whole damn thing. Biased garbage. 38.117.232.129 ( talk) 11:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC) — 38.117.232.129 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I mean, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article got deleted, why not delete this too for some fun? I assume it's because the QAnon theory is much more absurd that the Cultural Marxism theory, and so there is no risk of people reading the theories from Wikipedia and believing them, which isn't exactly good ground for deleting an article. Azaan Habib 11:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Tyler Cowen's most recent column references this article, specifically to question the controversial second sentence. Bzweebl ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Bzweebl:, if we decide to include something about this, we could at most include a sentence stating that "Tyler Cohen believes that QAnon believers...", in line with our usual practice when including properly-sourced and -attributed opinions. Please propose the wording you'd like to see in the article. Then we can make a decision. Otherwise, this is just forum stuff and should stop. -- Valjean ( talk) 21:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I have read the entire page believing the initial paragraph about «leading to a "day of reckoning" involving the mass arrest of journalists and politicians.» was talking about arresting right-wing journalists, but after a minute looking at actual Qanon content, it seems this was actually meant to talk about arresting left-wing journalists. Essentially I read this as "day of reckoning" as something bad the Qanon people were expecting to happen but not looking forward to, instead of something good they are looking forward to ( which I now realize is the case ). I think this deserves a bit of clarification. Arthurwolf~enwiki ( talk) 19:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
This recent salon.com article connects the narrative of today's Qanon to the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations some decades ago. The journalist may have gotten this idea from Qanon-ers that cite it and claim it was the "Franklin Coverup" and incorporate it into their conspiracy. I think the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations should either be mentioned in the article or go into the See also section.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 21:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
This Bloomberg article might be useful for the page. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 22:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The background section feels out of place as it jumps into a summery of Pizzagate right away. I feel it needs a bit of a lead in. Thoughts? blindlynx ( talk) 11:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
IT seems odd that it was reported as far back as 2018 by NBC that there is video evidence of the person known widely as "pamphlet anon", Coleman Rogers logging into Q's tripcode but his name is not floated anywhere else as a possible identity of "Q" https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531; specifically the section
"One archived livestream appears to show Rogers logging into the 8chan account of “Q.”The Patriots’ Soapbox feed quickly cuts out after the login attempt. “Sorry, leg cramp,” Rogers says, before the feed reappears seconds later.
Users in the associated chatroom begin to wonder if Rogers had accidentally revealed his identity as Q. “How did you post as Q?” one user wrote.
In another livestreamed video, Rogers begins to analyze a supposed “Q” post on his livestream program when his co-host points out that the post in question doesn’t actually appear on Q’s feed and was authored anonymously. Rogers’ explanation — that Q must have forgotten to sign in before posting — was criticized as extremely unlikely by people familiar with the message boards, as it would require knowledge of the posting to pick it out among hundreds of other anonymous ones."
slrry if my format is wrong it's been 10 years since I edited something on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8200:2600:5017:7F0B:B05E:9B29 ( talk) 06:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Article makes heavy use of weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superpacket ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion started here and got archived.
These sources got collected in the linked discussion:
And here are more links on the religious angle on QAnon that has developed in a lot of reliable sources:
Jlevi ( talk) 11:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to point out that the cabal that Donald Trump fights is also stated to be New World Order-ian. Aertgan ( talk) 11:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The info in this article is organized a little haphazardly, making it hard to follow from start to finish. I'd boldly change it myself but I don't want to barge in if there's some logic I'm missing. So I'd like to recommend reorganizing/resectioning it as follows: (1) Start with Background, prior conspiracies, milieu, anything the reader needs to know upfront before reading the theory itself, (2) "Theory and claims" combining the "false claims" section from below as there's no difference between the theory and the claims, (3) "Origins and spread" tracking its growth into mainstream popularity, (4) Identity, (5) not sure what to do with the rest aside from reducing the number of sections and proseline but I can give it more thought if that would be helpful. czar 18:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
"YouTube bans QAnon, other conspiracy content that targets individuals"
It's rather narrowly worded though:
“On the one hand, it is certainly more aggressive than their current harassment or conspiracy theory policies,” Lewis said. “On the other hand, by only prohibiting conspiratorial content that specifically targets other individuals or groups, it may leave huge amounts of leeway for QAnon content to continue to thrive.”
Would definitely fit into this article. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The inclusion of this film in the "See Also" section and the brief description of it frames the very widespread criticism of the film as part of QAnon. The film has been criticised by very many people with no relation to QAnon for it's sexualisation of children and linking that criticism to QAnon seems like a dishonest way to try and discredit critics of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.199.53 ( talk) 11:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Your feelings about the film and your opinion that the sexualisation of children is justifiable as some kind of ironic critique really isn't relevant, where is your evidence that QAnon was the first source to criticize the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.176.163 ( talk) 23:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Shouldn't QAnon be reclassified as a "Movement" not a "Conspiracy Theory?" 47.202.170.15 ( talk) 16:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
This may be relevant: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/tech/qanon-believer-how-he-got-out/index.html 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C ( talk) 21:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Would a list of QAnon's failed predictions be a useful addition to the article? There are credible sources that have listed QAnon's failures, for example this Daily Dot article QAnon Failed Predictions (The Daily Dot is considered "generally reliable for Internet culture" according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources).-- Shimbo ( talk) 09:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Even cursory analysis of the patch on the sheriff’s uniform would show that it is a Deadpool patch. Memorabilia from the Marvel Character Deadpool. Jedimedic77 ( talk) 08:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has run its course, but keeps attracting new comments about other commenters word choice. If there are new concerns about the wording of the article, please start a new section to discuss them. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 23:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't believe for a second that there are is any factual basis for anything that qanon has said. But this article has a tone which is diminishing to Wikipedia. It is hard to explain, but as an example, one can listen to a news article that reports on the same facts as reported by, say, NPR, the BBC and Fox News. NPR and Fox will use a tone that presumes that their listeners have a viewpoint and which, to a certain extent, will denigrate anyone with an opposing viewpoint. The BBC will can produce a news article that reports the same facts, but which doesn't put out the attitude that "you are stupid of you don't agree with me". Now, think about this for a minute. Even if you are a strong believer in a viewpoint that can't be supported, an attack is less likely to change your mind than a well reasoned, supported article. This article seems to flop back and forth between a political screed and a well supported article. I guess that I feel that this article needs to be heavily edited. Leave in the time line. Leave in the facts. Take out the slant. Surely the facts speak for themselves, and as it sits, it will make a believer just lump Wikipedia with the "liberal mainstream media". Simicich ( talk) 22:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Using the word "lies" in the tone it's used in sounds more like a Facebook post than an encyclopedia article. Who writes articles like that? It's like childish accusations and name-calling or something instead of presenting facts in a dignified manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.107.33 ( talk) 15:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
"No part of the theory is based on fact." This stamement is an opinion, not a fact. The reason why it is so is not in the references used as sources for this statement, but the way this statement is phrased. You see, when someone invents a theory, they base it on some facts. Otherwise it is a fiction, not a theory. So, is QAnon a conspircy theory, or is it not? If it is, then it is based at least on one fact, and that is a fact. Can you follow? So, please, remove this statement or rephrase this idea in such a way that it becomes a valid statement, like this: "Little proof has been found to support this theory". Or: "Some regard this theory as pure fiction". These statements prevent False balance while still maintaining neutral, encyclopedic tone. ENDrain ( talk) 22:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC) — ENDrain ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
'Hey, there is this verifyable fact, and here is my fictional narrative that connects/explains/builds up on that fact' - this is how a conspiracy theory usually starts. The theory itself, it couldn't have existed without a fact to be based onto. It would've been pure fiction otherwise, a made-up story about made-up facts based on concepts that exist IRL. You can't have "theory" and "no part is based on facts" in one sentence, it's a paradox. When put this way it sounds biased. This conspiracy theory is in fact pure fiction? Ok: "Known as a conspiracy theory, QAnon is in fact a work of pure fiction as it is not based neither does it reference any facts". ENDrain ( talk) 22:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC) — ENDrain ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
As someone not inclined to believe such theories. I'd heard this thing mentioned over and over in the media and finally came over here to figure out what they were talking about. I was kind of insulted by the tone of this article as well. It definitely is not written from WP:NPOV. It feels like the author of the article is more concerned with persuading the reader that the theory is false than accurately describing theory itself. For example Chemtrail conspiracy theory spends a good deal of space describing what the theory is exactly and what reasons people might have to believe the theory. I'm not asking for this article to present positive reasons to believe the theory, but I would like to at least come away with a sense of what the theory is and why these people believe it; and as it stands, this article doesn't do that. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 03:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need to make a edit to replace sentence "and plotting against President Donald Trump" to now read "and plotting to support President Donald Trump" Lil playa408 ( talk) 11:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed recently that some media sources are going ahead and calling this movement a cult. CNN NBC Rolling Stone Open Democracy WGBH just to name a few. Belief in a mysterious oracle, a rotating cast of illuminated ones who interpret the prophecies for the faithful, the utter inability to recognize when they were entirely wrong about something. Sounds like a cult to me. I think it may be worth mentioning at the very least that they are increasingly seen and referred to as a cult. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
"According to analysis conducted by Media Matters for America, as of August 2020, Trump had amplified QAnon messaging at least 216 times by retweeting or mentioning 129 QAnon-affiliated Twitter accounts, sometimes multiple times a day."
This should now be changed to: As Of October 2020, 258 times via at least 150 QAnon-affiliated accounts. Source: Footnote QuantumWasp ( talk) 15:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The first graf in this section looks a bit WP:ORish to me. Yes, one source does link QAnon to The Paranoid Style in American Politics, but it's one paragraph in a listicle. The second sentence also reads like a literature essay. What do others think? I am not well-versed in the QAnon mythos, so it's possible that this analysis is quite on-point/encyclopedic, but I'm not seeing it at the moment. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 21:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
According to Alexander Reid Ross, doctoral fellow at the Center for the Analysis of the Radical Right, QAnon is..." -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2020 media platform YouTube enacted a policy to stop the spread of misleading and dangerous information by prohibiting QAnon promoting content. Several [1] Frazzeledferret ( talk) 17:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Overall I think the intro gives a good overview of the theory, however I think the statement "No part of the theory is based on fact." is a bit blunt and un-informative and could be improved. I think the approach by the Pizzagate conspiracy theory seems much more informative which states "It has been extensively discredited by a wide range of organizations, including the Washington, D.C. police." since it clearly states the same information but also provides the reader with information of which organizations have discredited the theory. As a reader I think this type of information should actually be upfront and not hidden in the footnotes. Unlike many other conspiracy theories where it is very difficult to source and find credible people who spend time debunking the theory, this is a case where this is quite easy and there are many credible sources who have spent time to debunk the theory, so I think we should lead with that. I would therefore suggest to change "No part of the theory is based on fact." to "It has been extensively discredited by a wide range of organizations, including the FBI, which has labelled it a potential source of domestic terrorism." with the bold part of the sentence up for debate since this assessment is discussed further down in the 4th paragraph. Best regards. -- hroest 14:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Doing that would just make those entities mega-targets for Qanon abuse. Besides any list of orgs or people who consider it to be a fact that Qanon is idiotic nonsense would have to include everyone on the planet who isn't one of the Qanon sheeple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 ( talk) 05:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article is very well sourced, however some of the current phrasing feels editorialized and biased. I've highlighted the phrases that I think should be reformed to more neutral language, and perhaps adding detail from footnotes into the text. Also added some parts that I think need to be improved overall.
"At an August 2019 rally, a man warming up the crowd before Trump spoke used the QAnon motto": sentence doesn't make grammatical sense."
This sentence is grammatically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 ( talk) 05:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
QAnon is clearly poisonous bullshit. But there is an issue of free speech. Should they be allowed to say these things or should there be arbiters of truth that ban unpalatable views? There has been some discussion on this that would be good to see in the article. The section at the end talking about reactions by some social media is good, but I think this line could be developed further by an expert. To me, it is a key point -- how does a democratic society deal with things like QAnon? Tuntable ( talk) 06:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
"...But there is an issue of free speech". So you say in your second sentence, and then fail to provide any example of free speech being an issue in the rest of your paragraph. The fact is there is no issue of free speech regarding QAnon because no government entity has ever censored them, in fact, with Trump the opposite is the case. The very existence of Qanon is proof that free speech is as robust as it ever has been. What you may be referring to is private companies (Twitter, Facebook, Jimbo's Gas Station, etc) deciding they don't need to provide access to their facilities to people who do things like spray painting swastikas all over those facilities. If you think 'free speech' should mean something else, then take it up with the page on 'free speech'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 ( talk) 06:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Patreon has announced today that they will ban Q-Anon accounts as well: https://www.businessinsider.com/patreon-bans-qanon-conspiracy-theory-users-latest-tech-company-2020-10 IHateAccounts ( talk) 23:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the first line to say “Not to be confused with Qanun” instead of “For the instrument, see Qanun (instrument)” thank you 2600:6C64:6C7F:37D4:A556:A40C:F2BE:6DA1 ( talk) 23:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to delete this article because it promotes fake news. Jabpiz ( talk) 06:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
QAnon doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory; it sounds like a parody of a conspiracy theory. And it started on 4chan and 8chan, which are full of trolls, not conspiracy theorists. I for one would appreciate some attempt to guess how many people QAnon "supporters" are just doing it for the lulz. This is important in order to decide how much of a threat it poses and how to oppose it. Arguing against it using reason will only encourage trolls. Philgoetz ( talk) 05:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
reported that three people took the original Q post and spread it across multiple media platforms to build an internet following. QAnon was preceded by several similar anonymous 4chan posters, such as FBIAnon, HLIAnon (High-Level Insider), CIAAnon, and WH Insider Anon. Sxologist ( talk) 02:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Not going to edit, but [8] Doug Weller talk 18:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section on Mike Pence's comments, the link on the administration's role in "giving oxygen" to the theory is broken. This can be resolved by either (1) removing the link or (2) redirecting the link to QAnon#Donald Trump. -- zaiisao ( talk | contribs) 06:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Solid source about QAnon's reaction to the results of the recent presidential election from the New York Times: "Shocked by Trump’s Loss, QAnon Struggles to Keep the Faith". I'd add something about it myself, but I'm not sure which section would be most appropriate (or perhaps if a new one should be created?) Thoughts? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
[11] - mentions a Charlie Ward (also see [12]) and Martin Geddes " a computer scientist from Staines, being one of the most popular QAnon influencers in the world". They also discuss David Icke's role in laying the groundwork. They also did a survey of support in the UK. [13] Doug Weller talk 15:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone! Lurking admin here. Thanks to everyone who works tirelessly to maintain this article and all the drama, complexity and emotion that comes with it. I just want to encourage folks to visit WP:DONTBITE for a gentle reminder on keeping it civil and being friendly with newbies. (And I say this as someone who disagrees with all things QAnon!) Also feel free to refer people to WP:Teahouse to get further clarification and information. Our team of volunteers there are well trained at being friendly and patient. Thanks again everyone - you are appreciated! Missvain ( talk) 15:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the word "baseless" has an aura of "factual information". Even though several of the references include the word "baseless", that does not support the use of the word within the article. "Fringe", "far-right", "controversial", etc. are appropriate replacements.
Reference #36 has no mention of QAnon. The only connection appears to be the fact that the subject of #36 is Rosanne Barr, and in reference #37 Rosanne mentions QAnon.
FringeRider ( talk) 14:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Throughout this article the word "theory" is used instead of "conspiracy theory". Let's be clear, QAnon is not a theory, by any stretch of the imagination, it's Class A bullshit. We should be using either conspiracy theory (which has a clear and specific meaning), or QAnon, but definitely not theory. Acousmana ( talk) 16:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
No doubt there are far more failed predictions than true predictions, but why are only the former listed?
If there are no successful predictions, is the section name (false predictions, claims and beliefs) appropriate? It seems important to emphasise that the majority of predictions have failed upfront, but at the same time, some indication of Q's successes (if any) seems important too.
If there have been successful predictions, some indication of the success rate would provide further information about:
A stopped clock is right once a day; a propagandist is going to be correct more often than a crazy person (and so Q's accuracy says something about Q and their posts, even if it is not very high).— Preceding unsigned comment added by N4ut1lu5354r3c00l ( talk • contribs) 02:17, November 24, 2020 (UTC)
Sources:
I'm not sure if this should go into the "Usage of #SaveTheChildren and Freedom for the Children" section or be its own section. Asking for input and help on wording from others. IHateAccounts ( talk) 01:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Drmies: @ GorillaWarfare: I noticed that these (Wired article, Financial Times video segment) aren't reflected here.
I think they may have some points to offer, related to how the QAnon conspiracy theory is structured and operates. IHateAccounts ( talk) 16:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
First: Wow. I have never seen a article with so many guidelines or what ever it is called.
Besides that, it would be reasonable to link to give people a possibility to see what the article is actually about.
And I must say that the article gives a nervous impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.232.169.174 ( talk) 09:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I am bringing this edit here for discussion. As I read the first paragraph, it does not specifically document any link that QAnon had with harassing Jim Acosta. The second paragraph simply documents an evasive response from the White House. Unless there is further detail in other sources, I don't understand the rationale for including this section. NorthBySouthBaranof disagrees. Let's discuss. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 01:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The Swiss Company OrphaAnalytics is currently analyzing texts from several suspects, including Jim and Ron Watkins Source - Cocovfefe ( talk) 11:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Qanon is a cult 93.109.187.42 ( talk) 12:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm leaving this here to ask editors involved here if they could have a look at an edit request at the talk page here: Talk:Kate Shemirani#Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2020, which asks a question about QAnon. If anyone could give a better answer than I did, that would be much appreciated, thanks! Seagull123 Φ 00:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The picture doesn't self explain (the pic about a SWAT member). I was thinking put a logo of Qanon movement, because it makes a reference and reconnaissance work. The actual picture is ambiguous and you don't understand it if you don't read the image caption. Mirlo Nuncira ( talk) 21:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I know I can't even edit this but dont you think this should be on extended confirmed protection because of it controversy, same with the [ boys] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flahrdahgeorgiah ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Is Trump still fighting the cabal from Palm Beach? I don't know how to confirm or deny this, but I assumed his campaign against the Deep State "ended" when he left office? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 04:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe he's looking for the cabal on a local Florida golf course, with OJ?