![]() | 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 |
(Note: I have broken this off into its own section, as it was not directly related to the previous section it was written in. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 20:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC))
---
Financial Times is reporting that this was started as an Alternate Reality Game. I will add text in the lead paragraph based on RS. Geraldshields11 ( talk) 18:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
QAnon is part conspiracy theory, part religious/political cult, and part alternate-reality role-playing game.
What about the 2nd ref?
I think HandThatFeeds and Aquillion above basically have it right. The comparison is the sort of thing we could in principle write about, but it's not lede material, and claims by random people about inventing the whole thing are hardly noteworthy. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Jan. 20, 2021 Associated Press
QAnon: The inauguration has sown a mixture of anger, confusion and disappointment among believers in the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory. On social media, Trump's departure from the White House prompted a crisis of faith among QAnon supporters. Many believed that Trump would be orchestrating mass arrests, military tribunals and executions of his Satan-worshipping, child-sacrificing enemies https://apnews.com/article/biden-inauguration-qanon-79dd03a6dc497d6157304f8045f12cef
And a lot more interesting info that might be useful for updating the Wiki article.
And another article, from Reuters News agency: No plan, no Q, nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I think this is well attested enough for the lead now.
Watkins is the son of Jim Watkins, the owner of the message boards that Q relied on to make anonymous posts, 8chan and 8kun.
Q's posts originally appeared on 4chan. Then they moved to 8chan, where they stayed until that site was taken offline last year after the El Paso mass shooting. They now live on 8kun, a site run by the former owner of 8chan. Each of these sites uses a system of identity verification known as a "tripcode" — essentially, a username that proves that a series of anonymous posts were written by the same person or people.
Many more sources exist.
The fact that the lead only mentions 4chan is in my view an error and puts too much emphasis on the past. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 10:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Followers had also migrated to dedicated message boards such as EndChan and 8chan (now rebranded as "8kun"), where they organized to wage information warfare in an attempt to influence the 2020 United States presidential election.) accurately reflects the role 8chan plays. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed the statement in the lede that A stylometric analysis of Q posts claims to have uncovered that at least two people wrote as "Q" in different periods.
This seems an accurate summary of the given sources
[1]
[2], but is it too much detail for the introductory paragraphs? The
section about the identity of "Q" only gives that stylometric analysis a single sentence, with much less detail than the paragraph on the Watkinses. Also, the line about stylometry is perhaps redundant with the previous statement, it is now more likely that "Q" has become a group of people acting under the same name.
Maybe the Watkinses should be in the lede instead of stylometry?
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I think people here should stop pussyfooting around what QAnon is: it's a dangerous, brainwashed cult of violent, seditionist thugs who plotted to kill Pence and Pelosi all because of a string of lies spread by a psychopathic failure of a world leader. These psychos incited a riot and got people killed. Don't hedge bets in how you describe them here--they're crazy and they're idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.149.12 ( talk) 16:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
It's healthy discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 ( talk) 21:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I think Operation Trust should be linked into the see also section. Operation Trust includes Qanon in its see also section and they fit reciprocally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.246.32 ( talk) 10:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
In the Identity of "Q" section there is a single mention of Cicada 3301 as a possible source of Q's posts. I just watched a Financial Times film called "Is QAnon a game gone wrong?" in which Izabella Kaminska looks at the origin of QAnon. At 8:30 into the film she asks Jim Stewartson about the link between Cicada and QAnon. He replies by telling her about a woman called Lisa Clapier (@SnowWhite7IAM). whose "job" it apparently was to "bring people over from Cicada to QAnon". I am wondering whether this should be mentioned in the article? Ianji ( talk) 21:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove ALL liberal opinions and disproven comments about conservative groups such as Q Anon. The liberal opinions are NOT correct. Q Anon is NOT a terrorist group, (contrary to liberal lies). Keep printing lies on wikipedia and the whole site will be disassembled and removed from existence! 174.247.251.76 ( talk) 05:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Many Conspiracy Theories do exist, this Wiki information is not all correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4FF6:9870:585C:AEF1:1219:6C07 ( talk) 17:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The article lede should reflect that Qanon is not just a mere theory but a cult. There is enough expert sources that refer to it as a cult. [3] [4] I propose we change the lede to: "QAnon is a cult devoted to a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory" —Мандичка YO 😜 04:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Q'Anon is wrong there is no satanic cult in the white house. I have had dealings with satanic cults and they don't even follow satan anymore, if anything the heads of office are the leaders of their own cult and just labeling it as satanic JohnFoyer ( talk) 20:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
BBC, maybe good for something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
"8. That an 1871 act makes the United States a corporation and that on March 4, 2021, when the United States once again becomes the country started by our Founding Fathers, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as 19th President of the United States.
— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
We could attribute the quote to him. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)The big thing right now is the idea that Trump is secretly going to take power in a couple of months. They’ve really gotten into this. What’s funny about QAnon is the way that it’s constantly evolving. So now, for example, they’re saying that the United States is only a corporation and it’s been owned by the City of London since 1877. Plus they’re getting into a lot of sovereign citizen language. Now, Trump is going to come back in March and run the new American Republic so that essentially this can be a new country. That’s the latest theory and it remains very intensely focused on Trump. But yes, when he seems to be backing away from them, what do you do?
Can we use this?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
See, Politico Magazine cover article. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/
See also: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/19/qanon-conspiracy-theory-family-members-reddit-forum-469485 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.209.239.78 ( talk) 12:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence says "QAnon is a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory". I think we should just shorten it to "debunked". Anyone else? Sergei zavorotko ( talk) 23:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Although if you're ok with it, instead of 'debunked', I think dishonest, fraudlent, misleading, or untrustworthy would be better exchanges, assuming this page needs changes, which there is no reason for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.146.230 ( talk) 07:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey fellas, I would just like to point out that most of these sources are pretty one-sided and politically charged. It is a conspiracy theory article in an encyclopedia, so perhaps we should keep the emotion out of it. Let's leave the pathos to the politics and the unbiased reality to the encyclopedia. Only using left-wing sources for that intro is a gateway to allowing emotion into our sources of facts. Which facts, by definition, should not be emotional. It's understandable that there aren't many right-winged published articles about QAnon so due and undue weight is kinda tricky to pull off, but let's at least write it in a way that promotes healthy conversation and not blunt force screaming. Gdally17 ( talk) 21:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
What is QAnon?
QAnon is the umbrella term for a sprawling set of internet conspiracy theories that allege, falsely, that the world is run by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who are plotting against Mr. Trump while operating a global child sex-trafficking ring.
QAnon followers believe that this clique includes top Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and George Soros, as well as a number of entertainers and Hollywood celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, Ellen DeGeneres and religious figures including Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama. Many of them also believe that, in addition to molesting children, members of this group kill and eat their victims in order to extract a life-extending chemical from their blood.
According to QAnon lore, Mr. Trump was recruited by top military generals to run for president in 2016 in order to break up this criminal conspiracy, end its control of politics and the media, and bring its members to justice.
Please note that JazzClam is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See Special:Permalink/999792924 § JazzClam for details. — Newslinger talk 03:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This article's tone is non-neutral - it reads like counter propaganda.
Also, it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
So I would argue strongly that "disproven" be removed, but that rather the specific claims be addresses and disproven where possible (obviously with research) JMPZ ( talk) 02:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It's funny because I don't believe any QAnon theories but when someone is telling me something and they lead in with how it's 'disproven and discredited' I am immediately suspicious of whether they have an ulterior motive. I think that's just human nature, almost like the person has 'jumped the gun' in persuading the reader one way or the other. It's not neutral because it's read as an objective statement, rather than a statement from a reliable source (even if it is). Most people who visit wikipedia don't even know what citations are, let alone think about them as they're reading. I think the page should be rewritten to be more like the page '9/11 conspiracy theories'. The first line describes what the theories are, then the second line notes that reliable sources have rejected the theories. It feels far less like a Vox-tier hit piece and more like a neutral article. 101.98.134.21 ( talk) 01:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
It should be removed, if just as absurd ideas like 9/11 and Holocaust denial don't have this I really don't see the need. The absurdity of this theory speaks for itself. 3Kingdoms ( talk) 19:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
"disproven and discredited" is awkwardly wordy, and, on top of that, the word "discredited" implies that the theory had credibility to start with. WanderingWanda ( talk) 07:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
As a social psychologist by theoretical orientation and education, this talk page is fascinating as heck. Documenting and providing information (in an encyclopedia format) on an insane, ongoing internet cult is clearly incredibly difficult, tediously time consuming, and seemingly innately pedantic.
That said, I applaud all those who are working on this as I think its important to document its ongoing state, evolution, and convolutions. The ideas and beliefs of the movement are crazy nonsense, but the movement itself is real. That is a difficult tightrope to walk. Again, hats off to those who volunteer to do this work. Genuinely impressive testament to, at the very least, intellectual honesty, the scientific method, and rationality. I think this talk page is a demonstration that the rules and norms of Wikipedia work, and is a testament to Wikipedia’s importance as THE encyclopedia of the 21’st century. - SM
.
I am a prior Assistant Counsel to the President, Bush 41, Prosecutor under first Eric Holder, and then Robert Mueller. This article is patently offensive. I have read all the footnoted material, and none of it (not one part) is based upon personal knowledge of a group of people more than a few (less than five, often none). It has no public affiliation.
I took Constitutional Law under Joe Goldstein at Yale Law. I took Free Speech from Owen Fiss. I had a seminar with, among others, Aharon Barak of the Israeli Supreme Court and Burke Marshall, literally the author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (Look at the video of the signing ceremony by LBJ.)
This is the most offensive and ridiculous type of post to include in Wikipedia, certainly as it is written. It is McCarthyite-like in its tones. (See the Wednesday 'article' by the New York Times on a 'Reality Czar.') If this is allowed to say on Wikipedia, I believe it is false advertising, and if you have 501(c)(3) status, I believe that the law requires that you lose it. I am quite serious here. If I don't, someone should attack your status, and more. It is outrageous in a free society to present such material as "authoritative." I am quite frankly shocked. I have never been shocked before like this in America.
If you want to engage in political "commentary" and stirring up your own conspiracy theories -- here a conspiracy theory about an alleged conspiracy -- please do it on pages not labeled an "Encyclopedia." For the love of God (as an expression.) What is the phone number of the CEO of Wikipedia. I'd like to speak to him and his lawyers. PublicQWH ( talk) 21:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)PublicQWH
Instead of "disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory", how about " far-right hoax"? The word hoax is much more concise than "disproven and discredited conspiracy theory", and has been used to describe QAnon in many reliable sources, including the academic source "Breaking the Spin Cycle: Teaching Complexity in the Age of Fake News" (published by Johns Hopkins University Press; preprint available with identical wording as the published version for the relevant part). Reliable news sources that describe QAnon as a hoax include Global News, NPR ( RSP entry), NBC News ( RSP entry), and PolitiFact ( RSP entry). This article is already categorized into Category:2010s hoaxes, Category:2020s hoaxes, and Category:Hoaxes in the United States. — Newslinger talk 09:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Seem to be that is just what this is.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Another false claim made by QAnon believers, after the failed prediction of Donald Trump being reinstalled as President in March the 4th is that it is a conspiracy made by the left to make it look like QAnon has been debunked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pøgbasenior ( talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please put the failed predictions in chronological order? 116.240.236.234 ( talk) 13:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Could be read as Qanon did the plotting against Trump instead of the cabal. Admiral Ackbar2100 ( talk) 00:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Several media sources are covering a radicalisation technique used by QAnon described by researchers as Pastel QAnon, where QAnon co-opts the language and imagery of yoga, self improvement and other things popular with women to recruit them. They often frame their conspiracies as 'concern about child protection'.
I feel like this is an important aspect to include but I don't know enough about the topic to include it well. Please could someone take a look. I think this speaks to a wider need for a section describing radicalisation techniques used to recruit people.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 00:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: I've now created an article for Pastel QAnon, I would really appreciate it if you could add it to your watchlists, I think it may attract some of the same issues as the main QAnon article. John Cummings ( talk) 21:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
There's a discussion at this Wikimedia Commons page about whether this image should be deleted. The nominator says the it's a "Derivative work of a copyrighted banner". It seems more people should drop in there and weigh in. There's been little discussion so far. Benicio2020 ( talk) 20:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Not a forum for discussing whether Apple might object |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I just learned about Qanon here on Wikipedia. My first mental association when I saw the blue version of the logo was Quicktime, a "multimedia framework developed by Apple Inc." (to quote the Wikipedia article "QuickTime"). Is that really a coincidence, or is this Qanon conspiracy cult trying to reap and rip the benefits of logo familiarity by infringing and capitalizing on Apple's presumably trademarked logo? I mean, of all the colors, why would the Qanon cult pick the very same blue nuance as that of the already confusingly similar Q logo of Quicktime? (And can someone please alert Apple to this? I think being connected to a retarded cult isn't something Apple would take lightly.) Here's the Quicktime logo I had in mind: https://www.player.one/how-uninstall-quicktime-and-remove-windows-10-81-7-and-vista-527331 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.46.161.188 ( talk) 13:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
|
Just because content was added by a COI account (assuming they are) is not an excuse for the blanket removal of an RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted material:
Would be worth substantive discussion of what is DUE and verifiable and what isn't,as well as check for secondary sources. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven:, four different accounts apparently working under the direction of ADL as part of concerted effort of "adding ADL sources" added those, which clearly falls under WP:CITESPAM. They dislcosed they've used eight accounts. Four of those eight edited this article. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Anti_Defamation_League_citation_advocacy Graywalls ( talk) 07:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
References
I'm was very confused about these two sentences
In November 2017, Paul Furber, Coleman Rogers, and Tracy Diaz, two 4chan moderators and a YouTuber respectively, worked together to propagate QAnon to a wider audience.
A livestream archive appeared to show 4chan moderator Coleman Rogers logging in to the 8chan Q account during a Patriot's Soapbox livestream.
No active 4chan moderator has ever spoken to media or broken the anonymity code - but actually that's besides the point, because I believe what's happened here is an innocent clerical error. These are 8chan moderators, not 4chan moderators. I've identified the source of this error is from this article:
Now, I understand verifiability, no original research, etc, but this small error is pretty major. If it were any other typo, we could get round using [sic]. If one were to report this error to NBC, should we rely on the assumption they'll correct it so we can? Or should we correct it in the article and add a note in the cite footnote. Or should this source be discarded. JAYFAX ( talk) 20:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Furber and Coleman were moderators of the 4chan board that contained "Q drops," and Diaz was a far-right conspiracy-theory YouTuber.At the very least we'd need a source that clearly contradicts these, especially since your logic is a bit handwavy (no matter how much 4chan moderators are / were supposed to stay anonymous, it's hardly unlikely that journalists could discover them or that they could reveal themselves after they moved to another site.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
"Experts on extremism are warning about a troubling shift in the right-wing QAnon movement toward a new vein of conspiracy that blends anti-Chinese and anti-Jewish tropes with fears of vaccines and a global plot to take over the world."
Source: QAnon now pushes alarming conspiracy myths targeting China and Jewish people -- Los Angeles Times -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
My edit about Wu Ming was reverted. The edit was done because, as I stated, Wu Ming is not a foundation but a group, there is nothing in the Wikipedia article about Wu Ming that it is leftist, and even if it were leftist, that would not be of any relevance here.
The reason quoted by the person reverted was the source. However, if the source gives a wrong information, there is no reason to trust the source more than a long and obviously trustworthy article in our own Wikipedia. -- Bernardoni ( talk) 21:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
A new group pushing some related stuff that probably needs an article. [14]. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following categories:
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Sincerely, Deauthorized. (
talk) 23:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)@ RootOfAllLight: I see you are the creator of both the logo and flag used in QAnon#Identity of Q. Ignoring for a moment that that is an odd section for them, do you have any reliable sources supporting the claims that they are a "common logo used by QAnon followers" or a QAnon flag, respectively? While I don't think that you are just making up designs and claiming that they are widely used by QAnon followers, it would be nice to have some sourcing so that people can verify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article states that QAnon is sometimes referred to as just "Q", but I don't think that's accurate. Q is the subject of the conspiracy theory, but QAnon is the conspiracy theory. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen very many sources referring to QAnon as just Q. Internetronic ( talk) 04:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this is redundant. If something is disproven it is also discredited. The lead should try and be succinct as possible. Aircorn (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
che Dio vi fulmini
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no such thing as QAnon. There is Q and there is Anon. You should stop slandering something you know nothing about. 68.80.233.195 ( talk) 02:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"Efforts to defuse QAnon" is embarrassingly brief and vague compared to other incredibly niche and obscure and obsessively detailed minutea. That two page "journal" article by Sophia Moskalenko & Clark McCauley is a joke.
They dismiss and compare ISIS to Qanon that began on an obscure and reviled internet forum in 2017 to millions of believers, members of congress and who's group is responsible for more deaths on U.S. soil than ISIS in, oh, ever?
Oh yes and completely against the prevailing academic view:
https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/tliexqdu/release/1
https://ctc.usma.edu/the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-a-security-threat-in-the-making/
https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10868
https://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/view/437
https://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1158&context=studentresearch
https://journals.lib.sfu.ca/index.php/jicw/article/view/2816
All published well before that "article" which is two pages and is comparable to a newsletter piece not a serious academic study, are all ignored but that one gets put in not even 2 weeks after publication?
It's completely emblematic of course of this entire article, there's a voyeuristic fascination with the nuts and bolts of the theory without any regard of the real world damage to people's lives.
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2021/04/12/reseda-children-fatally-father-appears-at-memorial/
"“She believed that the city they were living in was unsafe and that there was a sex-trafficking ring and that most of the city was involved in it.” Miller also said Carrillo believed her children were being pulled into the sex-trafficking ring."
What does that sound like to you? Do you think this is the only one?
Oh and what about the social damage?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/09/14/qanon-families-support-group/
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/15/957371294/how-qanon-like-conspiracy-theories-tear-families-apart
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/12/tech/qanon-followers-family-lost-loved-ones/index.html
There's 100s of these, hundreds. Barely any mention.
And what, half a line from a former Qanon follower? When several have come out publically talking about how they fell into it and why, those may be questions that are relevant here I dont know, I'm not a wikipedia contributer.
Not looking at all angles of deffusing Qanon is like having a COVID-19 article with 4 lines about vaccinations. This entire thing is a bloated, verbose and weirdly sycophantic record of Qanon, its like just talking about it arouses all of you.
For shame, do your job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.31.182 ( talk) 09:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change ref 94 from newspaper quotation to original source : https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/after-the-ballots-are-counted-conspiracies-political-violence-and-american-exceptionalism/ 84.98.218.133 ( talk) 15:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Closed per WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 17:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Q is not QAnnon (this is a misnomer). It is not discredited except by those who it targets or finds political offense by it. Its not a far right conspiracy it is neither left nor right. It is a truth seeking operation. 153.25.178.60 ( talk) 12:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Exactly my point... search qanon pub then keyword search republican (the link to the Q posts are blacklisted for some crazy reason) this is a perfect example of the content they want suppressed.
Ok, sleep sleep.
And I want to thank Wikipedia, I have been a long time user and financial supporter of the platform. It helped me earn my undergraduate and MBA degrees.
|
Paragraph two currently says, "QAnon commonly asserts that Trump has been planning a day of reckoning known as the 'Storm'...". That should be in the past perfect tense ("had been planning") because while out of power, he has no ability to mount such a day of mass arrests. Mathglot ( talk) 09:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The opening summary states that QANON conspired against Donald Trump, while the rest of the article, as well as the citations for that very sentence, state that they support him. I suggest changing "conspired against former president Donald Trump" to "conspired in favor of former president Donald Trump". 2600:1014:B019:5D3D:0:56:27CE:C401 ( talk) 02:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The "Academic assessment" section makes the claim that "A 2021 study by psychologists suggested that, while QAnon's bizarre and radical opinions are widespread, "only 56 QAnon followers have actually committed any ideologically-motivated crime in the U.S."" and cites this paper (187):
This paper does make this claim by citing source [19], but this source does not exist on the citation page.
The statement is then leveraged to support the authors' opinions, even using the phrase "the authors believe that..."
This section strays pretty far from Wikipedia's Reliable Sourcing and Original Research policies and either needs to be reworked, recited, or removed.
LouGoodwin ( talk) 13:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of Vice News, never read it, never used it here, though I don't actually have a good reason to challenge it; it's yellow on WP:RSP. Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman was previously notable for:
Sidney Powell also presented an affidavit from an individual she described as a former intelligence contractor with knowledge of a foreign conspiracy to subvert democracy, who Powell said needed to remain anonymous to protect their "reputation, professional career and personal safety". The Washington Post identified the individual as pro-Trump podcaster Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman, and that parts of the affidavit matched a blog post she had written in November 2019. Maras-Lindeman had served in the Navy for less than a year over two decades earlier, and in a November 2018 civil suit the attorney general of North Dakota accused her of misappropriating funds for personal use from a charitable event she tried to organize. State attorneys asserted that she exaggerated her credentials and used multiple aliases and Social Security numbers in "a persistent effort...to deceive others". Asked about Maras-Lindeman, Powell told the Post: "I don't have the same information you do."
And now this from Vice: [16]
A known grifter and QAnon supporter who claims she can time-travel has amassed an army of thousands of loyal followers to carry out a plot to oust elected officials across the country and replace them with QAnon believers—and she’s using game-streaming platform Twitch to do it.
Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman has spent the last four months building an intricate network of groups in all 50 states, urging followers to dig up information about elected officials and cough up hundreds of dollars to take part in her scheme.
Maras-Lindeman has promised her followers that the plot will bring about “retaliation” for what she believes was a stolen election last November, and ultimately see the return of former president Donald Trump to the White House.
All the while, Maras-Lindeman, who streams under the name Tore Says, has grown her subscriber base massively, raking in tens of thousands of dollars since the beginning of the year. She even managed to convince her supporters to cough up over $87,400 in a crowdfunding campaign, which she used to buy a new Tesla.
soibangla ( talk) 19:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
As the Sabmyk Network redirects here, but is totally not mentioned on the page, I think some information is needed on this offshoot. I'm no expert, but here is what I came up with:
The Sabmyk Network is a network of Telegram channels promoting QAnon. Set up by German art dealer Sebastian Bieniek, the network shares its beliefs with mainline QAnon adherents [1] but also believes in an idiosyncratic mythology surrounding a leader-prophet called Sabmyk, whose coming was allegedly foretold by Noah in the Bible, and who will lead humanity's "awakening". [2] The network has tried to link Donald Trump to Sabmyk. [1] The group primarily targets dissatisfied QAnon believers, who have been disillusioned by QAnon's predictions failing to happen. [2]
However, I'm not sure where this could be included (or if it is too much for this page). -- Bangalamania ( talk) 00:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
References
I feel it would be useful to add to the article that at this point that the last confirmed Q drop was on December 8th 2020 (according to this article on Bellingcat, which is a reliable source) and hence Q has either ceased posting or is on by far their longest hiatus (same article says there were no posts between August and November 2019). As QAnon supporters are still coming up with things (such as the Sovereign citizen derived stuff and the Sabmyk stuff, which are already in the article) the conspiracy theory has moved beyond reliance on Q themself. However, I'm not sure where to put this. Perhaps a new section? Something like 'QAnon Post-Q'? A sentence in the lede would probably also be justified although it's already excessively long. Perhaps the lede needs a new edit to focus on the big picture. I can edit, but given the sensitivity I thought I'd see what the consensus is first. -- Shimbo ( talk) 11:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I feel like this article doesn't nearly get enough into detail about Q's posts, how they changed over time, and how they were interpreted. While there is a section dedicated to general claims made by Q, and how they failed miserably, any details about the drops themselves are fairly scarce.
Seeing as these posts are central to the QAnon mythos, I think it's only appropriate that more direct coverage, and scrutiny be applied Q's posts. A section about the format of the drops, how they were distributed among the online ecosphere, and how they were interpreted by larger curators, perhaps?
-- SgtShyGuy ( talk) 22:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
No mention that reddit removed several sub reddits that were very active in spreading the Q consiracy theories.
2603:8001:3846:2D00:3DFD:6A11:4CA5:A9B1 ( talk) 16:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you believe Qanon is a New Religious Movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybufffanatic2005 ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I think then we can say "some have described it as..."
QAnon has been called a syncrectic movement and a new religious movement.with cites in appropriate places. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 15:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are 31 occurrences of the word 'Russia' in the English-language article. There is a negative context in each case. There is only one occurrence of the word 'Россия' in the Russian-language and the context is neutral. Bring both versions to the common political ground. 49.3.22.203 ( talk) 08:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
These sources state that QAnon opposes vaccination venomously. To address the need to also consult the English monarch's permission to change leadership for Canada, there also exists the claim that Queen Elizabeth II was executed. The Epicness9000 ( talk) 19:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/completely-false-anti-vaccine-cease-and-desist-order-prompts-complaints-to-police-1.6088212?fbclid=IwAR0wQpf0olOdaRm-zFwCH9CJ4gWO3zI9UjjL-2sqGWbrQ2JdNKm16rtk2_o
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/06/fact-check-romana-didulo-is-not-the-commander-in-chief-of-canada.html?fbclid=IwAR0TufFLD5aZFD_9yNYidRXqHWL62kW8C1UjtIJH18Q353ffbCDetWHFVQQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Epicness9000 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I think this deserves a mention because it’s really heinous, even by Q standards. 2604:2D80:6986:4000:0:0:0:3474 ( talk) 05:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article says the theory is disproven, which is biased. I would remove the word "disproven". 2800:A4:31FC:7000:44D9:A20B:22F4:D096 ( talk) 13:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Right now this article says that: "QAnon is a disproven far-right conspiracy theory .." While Q-Anon at the core is based on ideas of satanic pedophiles, to mee it looks like Q-Anon is now more of a misinformation network/movement, and a source of baseless conspiracy-theories, like the lists of false predictions and claims show. I would prefer to define Q-Anon as a movement [21] [22] or a conspiracy theory group [23]. While the original Q-Anon conspiracy theory is disproven, a stunning 17% once believed it [24], and new ridicolus theories (election, vaccines) replace older and less popular theories. QAnon seems to live on as a movement. [25] QAnon is a misinformed and/or malicious movement, and a potential danger to truth and democracy, which should not be "dismissed" as a disproven theory. Markuswestermoen ( talk) 12:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
“QAnon [a] (/ˌkjuː.əˈnɒn/) is a disproven far-right conspiracy theory”
For this statement I suggest we swap out disproven with unproven. Why? I see no supporting evidence proving it never happened in the supplied sources. Even it being highly unlikely its still not possible to prove a negative so vague as this conspiracy theory. It would be of a higher standard of a neutral perspective to say it’s unproven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messengerone ( talk • contribs)
You don't find it significant that some QAnon followers now suspect he's a Satanist, Slatersteven?
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=QAnon&diff=1049079378&oldid=1049079144
soibangla ( talk) 18:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Q anon does not support the theory that Trump was implicate in the russian collusion They support the recently declassified US Gov report which I have a copy of, that states Hilary Clinton was briefed on discrediting Trump through Russian collusion Also WWG1WGA was not taken from a movie it was engraved on the bell of JFKs private boat. 90.216.175.13 ( talk) 08:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Within 'US QAnon child murders' please make children either son & daughter or boy & girl. 94.126.214.30 ( talk) 21:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Should there be some note that post-Dec 2020 Q has not posted? [26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.103.211 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, July 18, 2021 (UTC)
This is revisionist. It's a pro-Trump conspiracy. https://www.bbc.com/news/53498434 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.90.189.157 ( talk) 01:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Have a banner at the top of this talk page which reads “Dear QAnon supporters: You all got duped by a 4chan troll(s). This article reflects that. Thank you”. Perhaps it would deter future nonsense topics. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:94D3:B99F:B4EF:F951 ( talk) 18:10, 4 November 2021 (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.
Is it possible you're all being trolled? QAnon is so ridiculous that I wonder if Wikipedia and other have been fooled into thinking it's real. These people can't really believe the idiocy they espouse. It has to be fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 ( talk) 21:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Please read wp:soap. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Acroterion has reverted my change of the description of QAnon from a cult with roots in antisemitism and Nazism
to "a cult". I do not see how Nazism is a prominent aspect of reliable sources coverage of QAnon, and even in the article, it is only mentioned that a single scholar,
Gregory Stanton, has described QAnon as such. I think the fact that some of the major QAnon ideas like "Adrenochrome harvesting" are strongly reminiscent of antisemitic canards like
blood libel, which have been frequently noted in reliable sources, are probably worth mentioning in the lead, but further down, and better elaborated on that simply stating that it has "roots in antisemitism".
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 02:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. I do not see how the tenuous Nazi connection, which is not prominent in the discussion of QAnon in reliable sources, is worthy of the second sentence of the lead. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
the vast majority of QAnon-inspired conspiracy theories have nothing to do with anti-Semitismback in 2018 [27]. So it's important that the claims are not given undue weight. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Soibangla and Love of Corey: let's just go with it. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 23:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Just in case anyone is curious, the magically mysterious new article is Timeline of incidents involving QAnon. soibangla ( talk) 04:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wow Wiki...Q-anon description so unbiased!!😂😂😂 Who was the author?? 2600:1000:B127:C4B1:E0EB:125:481A:B9E3 ( talk) 16:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "movement" to "cult" in first line. 76.109.170.235 ( talk) 19:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I've seen a recent addition then revert of the box. It's obviously related to conservatism and the categories and WikiProjects also reflect that (its themes also exploit related fears of its target audience). If the box belongs in the article is another matter, though (and QAnon conspiracy theories do not necessarily reflect the views of traditional US conservatism)... — Paleo Neonate – 18:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
obviously related to conservatismthen we need to show this in the article body before adding the box (imo). -- Best, Mvbaron ( talk) 09:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This article claiming to cover a conspiracy theory does itself read like a conspiracy theory. There is a noticeable lack of internal consistency, it's linking together events with questionable connection and the general tone is alarmist. Can we clean it up to fix these flaws? While we are at it, can we make sure the sources we pull from don't have the same flaws?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.0.23 ( talk • contribs)
![]() | 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 |
(Note: I have broken this off into its own section, as it was not directly related to the previous section it was written in. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 20:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC))
---
Financial Times is reporting that this was started as an Alternate Reality Game. I will add text in the lead paragraph based on RS. Geraldshields11 ( talk) 18:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
QAnon is part conspiracy theory, part religious/political cult, and part alternate-reality role-playing game.
What about the 2nd ref?
I think HandThatFeeds and Aquillion above basically have it right. The comparison is the sort of thing we could in principle write about, but it's not lede material, and claims by random people about inventing the whole thing are hardly noteworthy. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Jan. 20, 2021 Associated Press
QAnon: The inauguration has sown a mixture of anger, confusion and disappointment among believers in the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory. On social media, Trump's departure from the White House prompted a crisis of faith among QAnon supporters. Many believed that Trump would be orchestrating mass arrests, military tribunals and executions of his Satan-worshipping, child-sacrificing enemies https://apnews.com/article/biden-inauguration-qanon-79dd03a6dc497d6157304f8045f12cef
And a lot more interesting info that might be useful for updating the Wiki article.
And another article, from Reuters News agency: No plan, no Q, nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I think this is well attested enough for the lead now.
Watkins is the son of Jim Watkins, the owner of the message boards that Q relied on to make anonymous posts, 8chan and 8kun.
Q's posts originally appeared on 4chan. Then they moved to 8chan, where they stayed until that site was taken offline last year after the El Paso mass shooting. They now live on 8kun, a site run by the former owner of 8chan. Each of these sites uses a system of identity verification known as a "tripcode" — essentially, a username that proves that a series of anonymous posts were written by the same person or people.
Many more sources exist.
The fact that the lead only mentions 4chan is in my view an error and puts too much emphasis on the past. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 10:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Followers had also migrated to dedicated message boards such as EndChan and 8chan (now rebranded as "8kun"), where they organized to wage information warfare in an attempt to influence the 2020 United States presidential election.) accurately reflects the role 8chan plays. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed the statement in the lede that A stylometric analysis of Q posts claims to have uncovered that at least two people wrote as "Q" in different periods.
This seems an accurate summary of the given sources
[1]
[2], but is it too much detail for the introductory paragraphs? The
section about the identity of "Q" only gives that stylometric analysis a single sentence, with much less detail than the paragraph on the Watkinses. Also, the line about stylometry is perhaps redundant with the previous statement, it is now more likely that "Q" has become a group of people acting under the same name.
Maybe the Watkinses should be in the lede instead of stylometry?
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I think people here should stop pussyfooting around what QAnon is: it's a dangerous, brainwashed cult of violent, seditionist thugs who plotted to kill Pence and Pelosi all because of a string of lies spread by a psychopathic failure of a world leader. These psychos incited a riot and got people killed. Don't hedge bets in how you describe them here--they're crazy and they're idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.149.12 ( talk) 16:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
It's healthy discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 ( talk) 21:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I think Operation Trust should be linked into the see also section. Operation Trust includes Qanon in its see also section and they fit reciprocally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.246.32 ( talk) 10:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
In the Identity of "Q" section there is a single mention of Cicada 3301 as a possible source of Q's posts. I just watched a Financial Times film called "Is QAnon a game gone wrong?" in which Izabella Kaminska looks at the origin of QAnon. At 8:30 into the film she asks Jim Stewartson about the link between Cicada and QAnon. He replies by telling her about a woman called Lisa Clapier (@SnowWhite7IAM). whose "job" it apparently was to "bring people over from Cicada to QAnon". I am wondering whether this should be mentioned in the article? Ianji ( talk) 21:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove ALL liberal opinions and disproven comments about conservative groups such as Q Anon. The liberal opinions are NOT correct. Q Anon is NOT a terrorist group, (contrary to liberal lies). Keep printing lies on wikipedia and the whole site will be disassembled and removed from existence! 174.247.251.76 ( talk) 05:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Many Conspiracy Theories do exist, this Wiki information is not all correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4FF6:9870:585C:AEF1:1219:6C07 ( talk) 17:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The article lede should reflect that Qanon is not just a mere theory but a cult. There is enough expert sources that refer to it as a cult. [3] [4] I propose we change the lede to: "QAnon is a cult devoted to a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory" —Мандичка YO 😜 04:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Q'Anon is wrong there is no satanic cult in the white house. I have had dealings with satanic cults and they don't even follow satan anymore, if anything the heads of office are the leaders of their own cult and just labeling it as satanic JohnFoyer ( talk) 20:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
BBC, maybe good for something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
"8. That an 1871 act makes the United States a corporation and that on March 4, 2021, when the United States once again becomes the country started by our Founding Fathers, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as 19th President of the United States.
— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
We could attribute the quote to him. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)The big thing right now is the idea that Trump is secretly going to take power in a couple of months. They’ve really gotten into this. What’s funny about QAnon is the way that it’s constantly evolving. So now, for example, they’re saying that the United States is only a corporation and it’s been owned by the City of London since 1877. Plus they’re getting into a lot of sovereign citizen language. Now, Trump is going to come back in March and run the new American Republic so that essentially this can be a new country. That’s the latest theory and it remains very intensely focused on Trump. But yes, when he seems to be backing away from them, what do you do?
Can we use this?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
See, Politico Magazine cover article. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/
See also: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/19/qanon-conspiracy-theory-family-members-reddit-forum-469485 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.209.239.78 ( talk) 12:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence says "QAnon is a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory". I think we should just shorten it to "debunked". Anyone else? Sergei zavorotko ( talk) 23:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Although if you're ok with it, instead of 'debunked', I think dishonest, fraudlent, misleading, or untrustworthy would be better exchanges, assuming this page needs changes, which there is no reason for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.146.230 ( talk) 07:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey fellas, I would just like to point out that most of these sources are pretty one-sided and politically charged. It is a conspiracy theory article in an encyclopedia, so perhaps we should keep the emotion out of it. Let's leave the pathos to the politics and the unbiased reality to the encyclopedia. Only using left-wing sources for that intro is a gateway to allowing emotion into our sources of facts. Which facts, by definition, should not be emotional. It's understandable that there aren't many right-winged published articles about QAnon so due and undue weight is kinda tricky to pull off, but let's at least write it in a way that promotes healthy conversation and not blunt force screaming. Gdally17 ( talk) 21:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
What is QAnon?
QAnon is the umbrella term for a sprawling set of internet conspiracy theories that allege, falsely, that the world is run by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who are plotting against Mr. Trump while operating a global child sex-trafficking ring.
QAnon followers believe that this clique includes top Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and George Soros, as well as a number of entertainers and Hollywood celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, Ellen DeGeneres and religious figures including Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama. Many of them also believe that, in addition to molesting children, members of this group kill and eat their victims in order to extract a life-extending chemical from their blood.
According to QAnon lore, Mr. Trump was recruited by top military generals to run for president in 2016 in order to break up this criminal conspiracy, end its control of politics and the media, and bring its members to justice.
Please note that JazzClam is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See Special:Permalink/999792924 § JazzClam for details. — Newslinger talk 03:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This article's tone is non-neutral - it reads like counter propaganda.
Also, it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
So I would argue strongly that "disproven" be removed, but that rather the specific claims be addresses and disproven where possible (obviously with research) JMPZ ( talk) 02:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It's funny because I don't believe any QAnon theories but when someone is telling me something and they lead in with how it's 'disproven and discredited' I am immediately suspicious of whether they have an ulterior motive. I think that's just human nature, almost like the person has 'jumped the gun' in persuading the reader one way or the other. It's not neutral because it's read as an objective statement, rather than a statement from a reliable source (even if it is). Most people who visit wikipedia don't even know what citations are, let alone think about them as they're reading. I think the page should be rewritten to be more like the page '9/11 conspiracy theories'. The first line describes what the theories are, then the second line notes that reliable sources have rejected the theories. It feels far less like a Vox-tier hit piece and more like a neutral article. 101.98.134.21 ( talk) 01:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
It should be removed, if just as absurd ideas like 9/11 and Holocaust denial don't have this I really don't see the need. The absurdity of this theory speaks for itself. 3Kingdoms ( talk) 19:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
"disproven and discredited" is awkwardly wordy, and, on top of that, the word "discredited" implies that the theory had credibility to start with. WanderingWanda ( talk) 07:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
As a social psychologist by theoretical orientation and education, this talk page is fascinating as heck. Documenting and providing information (in an encyclopedia format) on an insane, ongoing internet cult is clearly incredibly difficult, tediously time consuming, and seemingly innately pedantic.
That said, I applaud all those who are working on this as I think its important to document its ongoing state, evolution, and convolutions. The ideas and beliefs of the movement are crazy nonsense, but the movement itself is real. That is a difficult tightrope to walk. Again, hats off to those who volunteer to do this work. Genuinely impressive testament to, at the very least, intellectual honesty, the scientific method, and rationality. I think this talk page is a demonstration that the rules and norms of Wikipedia work, and is a testament to Wikipedia’s importance as THE encyclopedia of the 21’st century. - SM
.
I am a prior Assistant Counsel to the President, Bush 41, Prosecutor under first Eric Holder, and then Robert Mueller. This article is patently offensive. I have read all the footnoted material, and none of it (not one part) is based upon personal knowledge of a group of people more than a few (less than five, often none). It has no public affiliation.
I took Constitutional Law under Joe Goldstein at Yale Law. I took Free Speech from Owen Fiss. I had a seminar with, among others, Aharon Barak of the Israeli Supreme Court and Burke Marshall, literally the author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (Look at the video of the signing ceremony by LBJ.)
This is the most offensive and ridiculous type of post to include in Wikipedia, certainly as it is written. It is McCarthyite-like in its tones. (See the Wednesday 'article' by the New York Times on a 'Reality Czar.') If this is allowed to say on Wikipedia, I believe it is false advertising, and if you have 501(c)(3) status, I believe that the law requires that you lose it. I am quite serious here. If I don't, someone should attack your status, and more. It is outrageous in a free society to present such material as "authoritative." I am quite frankly shocked. I have never been shocked before like this in America.
If you want to engage in political "commentary" and stirring up your own conspiracy theories -- here a conspiracy theory about an alleged conspiracy -- please do it on pages not labeled an "Encyclopedia." For the love of God (as an expression.) What is the phone number of the CEO of Wikipedia. I'd like to speak to him and his lawyers. PublicQWH ( talk) 21:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)PublicQWH
Instead of "disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory", how about " far-right hoax"? The word hoax is much more concise than "disproven and discredited conspiracy theory", and has been used to describe QAnon in many reliable sources, including the academic source "Breaking the Spin Cycle: Teaching Complexity in the Age of Fake News" (published by Johns Hopkins University Press; preprint available with identical wording as the published version for the relevant part). Reliable news sources that describe QAnon as a hoax include Global News, NPR ( RSP entry), NBC News ( RSP entry), and PolitiFact ( RSP entry). This article is already categorized into Category:2010s hoaxes, Category:2020s hoaxes, and Category:Hoaxes in the United States. — Newslinger talk 09:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Seem to be that is just what this is.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Another false claim made by QAnon believers, after the failed prediction of Donald Trump being reinstalled as President in March the 4th is that it is a conspiracy made by the left to make it look like QAnon has been debunked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pøgbasenior ( talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please put the failed predictions in chronological order? 116.240.236.234 ( talk) 13:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Could be read as Qanon did the plotting against Trump instead of the cabal. Admiral Ackbar2100 ( talk) 00:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Several media sources are covering a radicalisation technique used by QAnon described by researchers as Pastel QAnon, where QAnon co-opts the language and imagery of yoga, self improvement and other things popular with women to recruit them. They often frame their conspiracies as 'concern about child protection'.
I feel like this is an important aspect to include but I don't know enough about the topic to include it well. Please could someone take a look. I think this speaks to a wider need for a section describing radicalisation techniques used to recruit people.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 00:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: I've now created an article for Pastel QAnon, I would really appreciate it if you could add it to your watchlists, I think it may attract some of the same issues as the main QAnon article. John Cummings ( talk) 21:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
There's a discussion at this Wikimedia Commons page about whether this image should be deleted. The nominator says the it's a "Derivative work of a copyrighted banner". It seems more people should drop in there and weigh in. There's been little discussion so far. Benicio2020 ( talk) 20:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Not a forum for discussing whether Apple might object |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I just learned about Qanon here on Wikipedia. My first mental association when I saw the blue version of the logo was Quicktime, a "multimedia framework developed by Apple Inc." (to quote the Wikipedia article "QuickTime"). Is that really a coincidence, or is this Qanon conspiracy cult trying to reap and rip the benefits of logo familiarity by infringing and capitalizing on Apple's presumably trademarked logo? I mean, of all the colors, why would the Qanon cult pick the very same blue nuance as that of the already confusingly similar Q logo of Quicktime? (And can someone please alert Apple to this? I think being connected to a retarded cult isn't something Apple would take lightly.) Here's the Quicktime logo I had in mind: https://www.player.one/how-uninstall-quicktime-and-remove-windows-10-81-7-and-vista-527331 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.46.161.188 ( talk) 13:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
|
Just because content was added by a COI account (assuming they are) is not an excuse for the blanket removal of an RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted material:
Would be worth substantive discussion of what is DUE and verifiable and what isn't,as well as check for secondary sources. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven:, four different accounts apparently working under the direction of ADL as part of concerted effort of "adding ADL sources" added those, which clearly falls under WP:CITESPAM. They dislcosed they've used eight accounts. Four of those eight edited this article. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Anti_Defamation_League_citation_advocacy Graywalls ( talk) 07:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
References
I'm was very confused about these two sentences
In November 2017, Paul Furber, Coleman Rogers, and Tracy Diaz, two 4chan moderators and a YouTuber respectively, worked together to propagate QAnon to a wider audience.
A livestream archive appeared to show 4chan moderator Coleman Rogers logging in to the 8chan Q account during a Patriot's Soapbox livestream.
No active 4chan moderator has ever spoken to media or broken the anonymity code - but actually that's besides the point, because I believe what's happened here is an innocent clerical error. These are 8chan moderators, not 4chan moderators. I've identified the source of this error is from this article:
Now, I understand verifiability, no original research, etc, but this small error is pretty major. If it were any other typo, we could get round using [sic]. If one were to report this error to NBC, should we rely on the assumption they'll correct it so we can? Or should we correct it in the article and add a note in the cite footnote. Or should this source be discarded. JAYFAX ( talk) 20:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Furber and Coleman were moderators of the 4chan board that contained "Q drops," and Diaz was a far-right conspiracy-theory YouTuber.At the very least we'd need a source that clearly contradicts these, especially since your logic is a bit handwavy (no matter how much 4chan moderators are / were supposed to stay anonymous, it's hardly unlikely that journalists could discover them or that they could reveal themselves after they moved to another site.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
"Experts on extremism are warning about a troubling shift in the right-wing QAnon movement toward a new vein of conspiracy that blends anti-Chinese and anti-Jewish tropes with fears of vaccines and a global plot to take over the world."
Source: QAnon now pushes alarming conspiracy myths targeting China and Jewish people -- Los Angeles Times -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
My edit about Wu Ming was reverted. The edit was done because, as I stated, Wu Ming is not a foundation but a group, there is nothing in the Wikipedia article about Wu Ming that it is leftist, and even if it were leftist, that would not be of any relevance here.
The reason quoted by the person reverted was the source. However, if the source gives a wrong information, there is no reason to trust the source more than a long and obviously trustworthy article in our own Wikipedia. -- Bernardoni ( talk) 21:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
A new group pushing some related stuff that probably needs an article. [14]. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following categories:
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Sincerely, Deauthorized. (
talk) 23:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)@ RootOfAllLight: I see you are the creator of both the logo and flag used in QAnon#Identity of Q. Ignoring for a moment that that is an odd section for them, do you have any reliable sources supporting the claims that they are a "common logo used by QAnon followers" or a QAnon flag, respectively? While I don't think that you are just making up designs and claiming that they are widely used by QAnon followers, it would be nice to have some sourcing so that people can verify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article states that QAnon is sometimes referred to as just "Q", but I don't think that's accurate. Q is the subject of the conspiracy theory, but QAnon is the conspiracy theory. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen very many sources referring to QAnon as just Q. Internetronic ( talk) 04:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this is redundant. If something is disproven it is also discredited. The lead should try and be succinct as possible. Aircorn (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
che Dio vi fulmini
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no such thing as QAnon. There is Q and there is Anon. You should stop slandering something you know nothing about. 68.80.233.195 ( talk) 02:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"Efforts to defuse QAnon" is embarrassingly brief and vague compared to other incredibly niche and obscure and obsessively detailed minutea. That two page "journal" article by Sophia Moskalenko & Clark McCauley is a joke.
They dismiss and compare ISIS to Qanon that began on an obscure and reviled internet forum in 2017 to millions of believers, members of congress and who's group is responsible for more deaths on U.S. soil than ISIS in, oh, ever?
Oh yes and completely against the prevailing academic view:
https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/tliexqdu/release/1
https://ctc.usma.edu/the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-a-security-threat-in-the-making/
https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10868
https://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/view/437
https://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1158&context=studentresearch
https://journals.lib.sfu.ca/index.php/jicw/article/view/2816
All published well before that "article" which is two pages and is comparable to a newsletter piece not a serious academic study, are all ignored but that one gets put in not even 2 weeks after publication?
It's completely emblematic of course of this entire article, there's a voyeuristic fascination with the nuts and bolts of the theory without any regard of the real world damage to people's lives.
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2021/04/12/reseda-children-fatally-father-appears-at-memorial/
"“She believed that the city they were living in was unsafe and that there was a sex-trafficking ring and that most of the city was involved in it.” Miller also said Carrillo believed her children were being pulled into the sex-trafficking ring."
What does that sound like to you? Do you think this is the only one?
Oh and what about the social damage?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/09/14/qanon-families-support-group/
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/15/957371294/how-qanon-like-conspiracy-theories-tear-families-apart
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/12/tech/qanon-followers-family-lost-loved-ones/index.html
There's 100s of these, hundreds. Barely any mention.
And what, half a line from a former Qanon follower? When several have come out publically talking about how they fell into it and why, those may be questions that are relevant here I dont know, I'm not a wikipedia contributer.
Not looking at all angles of deffusing Qanon is like having a COVID-19 article with 4 lines about vaccinations. This entire thing is a bloated, verbose and weirdly sycophantic record of Qanon, its like just talking about it arouses all of you.
For shame, do your job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.31.182 ( talk) 09:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change ref 94 from newspaper quotation to original source : https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/after-the-ballots-are-counted-conspiracies-political-violence-and-american-exceptionalism/ 84.98.218.133 ( talk) 15:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Closed per WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 17:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Q is not QAnnon (this is a misnomer). It is not discredited except by those who it targets or finds political offense by it. Its not a far right conspiracy it is neither left nor right. It is a truth seeking operation. 153.25.178.60 ( talk) 12:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Exactly my point... search qanon pub then keyword search republican (the link to the Q posts are blacklisted for some crazy reason) this is a perfect example of the content they want suppressed.
Ok, sleep sleep.
And I want to thank Wikipedia, I have been a long time user and financial supporter of the platform. It helped me earn my undergraduate and MBA degrees.
|
Paragraph two currently says, "QAnon commonly asserts that Trump has been planning a day of reckoning known as the 'Storm'...". That should be in the past perfect tense ("had been planning") because while out of power, he has no ability to mount such a day of mass arrests. Mathglot ( talk) 09:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The opening summary states that QANON conspired against Donald Trump, while the rest of the article, as well as the citations for that very sentence, state that they support him. I suggest changing "conspired against former president Donald Trump" to "conspired in favor of former president Donald Trump". 2600:1014:B019:5D3D:0:56:27CE:C401 ( talk) 02:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The "Academic assessment" section makes the claim that "A 2021 study by psychologists suggested that, while QAnon's bizarre and radical opinions are widespread, "only 56 QAnon followers have actually committed any ideologically-motivated crime in the U.S."" and cites this paper (187):
This paper does make this claim by citing source [19], but this source does not exist on the citation page.
The statement is then leveraged to support the authors' opinions, even using the phrase "the authors believe that..."
This section strays pretty far from Wikipedia's Reliable Sourcing and Original Research policies and either needs to be reworked, recited, or removed.
LouGoodwin ( talk) 13:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of Vice News, never read it, never used it here, though I don't actually have a good reason to challenge it; it's yellow on WP:RSP. Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman was previously notable for:
Sidney Powell also presented an affidavit from an individual she described as a former intelligence contractor with knowledge of a foreign conspiracy to subvert democracy, who Powell said needed to remain anonymous to protect their "reputation, professional career and personal safety". The Washington Post identified the individual as pro-Trump podcaster Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman, and that parts of the affidavit matched a blog post she had written in November 2019. Maras-Lindeman had served in the Navy for less than a year over two decades earlier, and in a November 2018 civil suit the attorney general of North Dakota accused her of misappropriating funds for personal use from a charitable event she tried to organize. State attorneys asserted that she exaggerated her credentials and used multiple aliases and Social Security numbers in "a persistent effort...to deceive others". Asked about Maras-Lindeman, Powell told the Post: "I don't have the same information you do."
And now this from Vice: [16]
A known grifter and QAnon supporter who claims she can time-travel has amassed an army of thousands of loyal followers to carry out a plot to oust elected officials across the country and replace them with QAnon believers—and she’s using game-streaming platform Twitch to do it.
Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman has spent the last four months building an intricate network of groups in all 50 states, urging followers to dig up information about elected officials and cough up hundreds of dollars to take part in her scheme.
Maras-Lindeman has promised her followers that the plot will bring about “retaliation” for what she believes was a stolen election last November, and ultimately see the return of former president Donald Trump to the White House.
All the while, Maras-Lindeman, who streams under the name Tore Says, has grown her subscriber base massively, raking in tens of thousands of dollars since the beginning of the year. She even managed to convince her supporters to cough up over $87,400 in a crowdfunding campaign, which she used to buy a new Tesla.
soibangla ( talk) 19:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
As the Sabmyk Network redirects here, but is totally not mentioned on the page, I think some information is needed on this offshoot. I'm no expert, but here is what I came up with:
The Sabmyk Network is a network of Telegram channels promoting QAnon. Set up by German art dealer Sebastian Bieniek, the network shares its beliefs with mainline QAnon adherents [1] but also believes in an idiosyncratic mythology surrounding a leader-prophet called Sabmyk, whose coming was allegedly foretold by Noah in the Bible, and who will lead humanity's "awakening". [2] The network has tried to link Donald Trump to Sabmyk. [1] The group primarily targets dissatisfied QAnon believers, who have been disillusioned by QAnon's predictions failing to happen. [2]
However, I'm not sure where this could be included (or if it is too much for this page). -- Bangalamania ( talk) 00:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
References
I feel it would be useful to add to the article that at this point that the last confirmed Q drop was on December 8th 2020 (according to this article on Bellingcat, which is a reliable source) and hence Q has either ceased posting or is on by far their longest hiatus (same article says there were no posts between August and November 2019). As QAnon supporters are still coming up with things (such as the Sovereign citizen derived stuff and the Sabmyk stuff, which are already in the article) the conspiracy theory has moved beyond reliance on Q themself. However, I'm not sure where to put this. Perhaps a new section? Something like 'QAnon Post-Q'? A sentence in the lede would probably also be justified although it's already excessively long. Perhaps the lede needs a new edit to focus on the big picture. I can edit, but given the sensitivity I thought I'd see what the consensus is first. -- Shimbo ( talk) 11:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I feel like this article doesn't nearly get enough into detail about Q's posts, how they changed over time, and how they were interpreted. While there is a section dedicated to general claims made by Q, and how they failed miserably, any details about the drops themselves are fairly scarce.
Seeing as these posts are central to the QAnon mythos, I think it's only appropriate that more direct coverage, and scrutiny be applied Q's posts. A section about the format of the drops, how they were distributed among the online ecosphere, and how they were interpreted by larger curators, perhaps?
-- SgtShyGuy ( talk) 22:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
No mention that reddit removed several sub reddits that were very active in spreading the Q consiracy theories.
2603:8001:3846:2D00:3DFD:6A11:4CA5:A9B1 ( talk) 16:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you believe Qanon is a New Religious Movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybufffanatic2005 ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I think then we can say "some have described it as..."
QAnon has been called a syncrectic movement and a new religious movement.with cites in appropriate places. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 15:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are 31 occurrences of the word 'Russia' in the English-language article. There is a negative context in each case. There is only one occurrence of the word 'Россия' in the Russian-language and the context is neutral. Bring both versions to the common political ground. 49.3.22.203 ( talk) 08:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
These sources state that QAnon opposes vaccination venomously. To address the need to also consult the English monarch's permission to change leadership for Canada, there also exists the claim that Queen Elizabeth II was executed. The Epicness9000 ( talk) 19:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/completely-false-anti-vaccine-cease-and-desist-order-prompts-complaints-to-police-1.6088212?fbclid=IwAR0wQpf0olOdaRm-zFwCH9CJ4gWO3zI9UjjL-2sqGWbrQ2JdNKm16rtk2_o
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/06/fact-check-romana-didulo-is-not-the-commander-in-chief-of-canada.html?fbclid=IwAR0TufFLD5aZFD_9yNYidRXqHWL62kW8C1UjtIJH18Q353ffbCDetWHFVQQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Epicness9000 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I think this deserves a mention because it’s really heinous, even by Q standards. 2604:2D80:6986:4000:0:0:0:3474 ( talk) 05:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article says the theory is disproven, which is biased. I would remove the word "disproven". 2800:A4:31FC:7000:44D9:A20B:22F4:D096 ( talk) 13:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Right now this article says that: "QAnon is a disproven far-right conspiracy theory .." While Q-Anon at the core is based on ideas of satanic pedophiles, to mee it looks like Q-Anon is now more of a misinformation network/movement, and a source of baseless conspiracy-theories, like the lists of false predictions and claims show. I would prefer to define Q-Anon as a movement [21] [22] or a conspiracy theory group [23]. While the original Q-Anon conspiracy theory is disproven, a stunning 17% once believed it [24], and new ridicolus theories (election, vaccines) replace older and less popular theories. QAnon seems to live on as a movement. [25] QAnon is a misinformed and/or malicious movement, and a potential danger to truth and democracy, which should not be "dismissed" as a disproven theory. Markuswestermoen ( talk) 12:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
“QAnon [a] (/ˌkjuː.əˈnɒn/) is a disproven far-right conspiracy theory”
For this statement I suggest we swap out disproven with unproven. Why? I see no supporting evidence proving it never happened in the supplied sources. Even it being highly unlikely its still not possible to prove a negative so vague as this conspiracy theory. It would be of a higher standard of a neutral perspective to say it’s unproven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messengerone ( talk • contribs)
You don't find it significant that some QAnon followers now suspect he's a Satanist, Slatersteven?
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=QAnon&diff=1049079378&oldid=1049079144
soibangla ( talk) 18:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Q anon does not support the theory that Trump was implicate in the russian collusion They support the recently declassified US Gov report which I have a copy of, that states Hilary Clinton was briefed on discrediting Trump through Russian collusion Also WWG1WGA was not taken from a movie it was engraved on the bell of JFKs private boat. 90.216.175.13 ( talk) 08:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Within 'US QAnon child murders' please make children either son & daughter or boy & girl. 94.126.214.30 ( talk) 21:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Should there be some note that post-Dec 2020 Q has not posted? [26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.103.211 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, July 18, 2021 (UTC)
This is revisionist. It's a pro-Trump conspiracy. https://www.bbc.com/news/53498434 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.90.189.157 ( talk) 01:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Have a banner at the top of this talk page which reads “Dear QAnon supporters: You all got duped by a 4chan troll(s). This article reflects that. Thank you”. Perhaps it would deter future nonsense topics. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:94D3:B99F:B4EF:F951 ( talk) 18:10, 4 November 2021 (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.
Is it possible you're all being trolled? QAnon is so ridiculous that I wonder if Wikipedia and other have been fooled into thinking it's real. These people can't really believe the idiocy they espouse. It has to be fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 ( talk) 21:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Please read wp:soap. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Acroterion has reverted my change of the description of QAnon from a cult with roots in antisemitism and Nazism
to "a cult". I do not see how Nazism is a prominent aspect of reliable sources coverage of QAnon, and even in the article, it is only mentioned that a single scholar,
Gregory Stanton, has described QAnon as such. I think the fact that some of the major QAnon ideas like "Adrenochrome harvesting" are strongly reminiscent of antisemitic canards like
blood libel, which have been frequently noted in reliable sources, are probably worth mentioning in the lead, but further down, and better elaborated on that simply stating that it has "roots in antisemitism".
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 02:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. I do not see how the tenuous Nazi connection, which is not prominent in the discussion of QAnon in reliable sources, is worthy of the second sentence of the lead. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
the vast majority of QAnon-inspired conspiracy theories have nothing to do with anti-Semitismback in 2018 [27]. So it's important that the claims are not given undue weight. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Soibangla and Love of Corey: let's just go with it. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 23:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Just in case anyone is curious, the magically mysterious new article is Timeline of incidents involving QAnon. soibangla ( talk) 04:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wow Wiki...Q-anon description so unbiased!!😂😂😂 Who was the author?? 2600:1000:B127:C4B1:E0EB:125:481A:B9E3 ( talk) 16:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
QAnon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "movement" to "cult" in first line. 76.109.170.235 ( talk) 19:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I've seen a recent addition then revert of the box. It's obviously related to conservatism and the categories and WikiProjects also reflect that (its themes also exploit related fears of its target audience). If the box belongs in the article is another matter, though (and QAnon conspiracy theories do not necessarily reflect the views of traditional US conservatism)... — Paleo Neonate – 18:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
obviously related to conservatismthen we need to show this in the article body before adding the box (imo). -- Best, Mvbaron ( talk) 09:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This article claiming to cover a conspiracy theory does itself read like a conspiracy theory. There is a noticeable lack of internal consistency, it's linking together events with questionable connection and the general tone is alarmist. Can we clean it up to fix these flaws? While we are at it, can we make sure the sources we pull from don't have the same flaws?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.0.23 ( talk • contribs)