Talk:QAnon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Completely biased

NOTAFORUM

This article is incredibly biased. I'm tired of seeing articles on political topics, that aren't left-leaning, being labelled as far right. This movement is only far-right, if your viewpoint originates from the far-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnedresponsibility (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Which "movement" would you be referring to? This article is about, as reliable sources discuss, a crazy, entirely-unfounded set of conspiracy theories which have thus far amounted to lots of people looking really stupid on the Internet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC) First time reading this article and I agree it is very biased. First off, the statement that Qanon's accusations of liberal Hollywood celebrities, politicians, etc. are false should be considered "weasel words" at worst. Documentation, please, that you have proven Qanon's accusations to be FALSE. It's not false just because you can't find evidence that it isn't. Knock it off and get back to being like a real encyclopedia. Write such a statement as an objective, not as a biased opinion. I miss it when biased statements like that used to be removed or corrected. Now they just get left in an article. This is why Wikipedia is imploding on itself and can't find enough donors (I stopped donating several years ago). What, it's ok to make a statement like that without citation, when it fits the agenda? Who are we trying to protect here, really?66.227.209.60 (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC) I strongly encourage you to add content that eliminates your perceived bias. I suggest you begin by providing evidence of a child sex cult ring. soibangla (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Pizzagate has been debunked several times. It's absolutely fair to say that the accusations were false. BeŻet (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Non Neutral Discussion Points

WP:NOTHERE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article in its current state does not display a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Changes made to reflect a more neutral position with less unsubstantiated accusations (use of words like "hostile") resulted in a level of protection being given to this article so ordinary users can no longer edit it. This leaves the content of the article, which is again mentioned to be of the NON-NETURAL variety, subject to whatever "wikipedia editors" desire. Users are ANGRY about this and cannot TRUST editors to offer a NEUTRAL point of view because of the elevation of protection when the article is attempted to be corrected. It is frustrating hearing others tell me they cannot trust Wikipedia anymore because of behaviors like this. Unforutantely, most do not further to the talk page and will not see the reality of this situation. Therefore, I serve this message as both a REQUEST for users to allow them to edit the page as wikipedia normally functions - and a WARNING of the rapid trust that is being lost in WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowman2333 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC) It would be more helpful if you could address spefic and actionable NPOV issues. - Strongjam (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC) If any of these readers do in fact make it to the talk page they might take a look at this POV edit, which removed valid, neutral text based on reliable sources. They may rest assured knowing that the editor that caused that disruption (5 times in a row, in clear violation of WP:3RR and WP:EW) was indeed temporarily blocked. I do hope that editor has, in the meantime, read about our edit warring policies, and has also taken the opportunity to read up on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I'm sure Cowman2333 will agree that such behavior can't happen in an encyclopedic, collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Please note this is NOT OKAY and has resulted in many ANGRY USERS. Wikipedia is supposed to be an UNBIAS source. The public perception has shifted heavily and it does not look good for Wikipedia! AGAIN, I serve this message as both a REQUEST for users to allow them to edit the page as wikipedia normally functions - and a WARNING of the rapid trust that is being lost in WIKIPEDIA. Thanks! (Cowman2333) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC) @Cowman2333: Qanon has made prophecies that have utterly failed (such as Clinton's imminent arrest), and has made positive references to the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory. A member of the Trump administration dismissed any legitmacy for Qanon. Even InfoWars (the McDonald's of conspiracy theories so stupid that only the willfully delusional entertain them) cannot bring themselves to support Qanon. We do not need to give artificial balance between the truth and what is obviously false. That's not what "neutral" means. Neutral means we don't say "Qanon is a conspiracy theory so stupid you should immediately discount anything someone says if they believe it," we just report that it's a conspiracy theory and it's claims are false. Further arguing in favor of Qanon, or trying to dismiss reliably sourced information against Qanon, or accusing everyone but you of bias, may be treated as a disruptive editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Hello Ian and welcome! Feel free to take whatever actions you like! Will you have the COURAGE to leave this log of evidence of your BIAS up though? Will you SILENCE users when they have the COURAGE to call you out? Are you interested in FACTS? I have been with Wikipedia for 7 years - check my page. This behavior displayed here is NOT good. Cowman2333 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Note how you are still arguing the legitimacy of qanon EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NOT EVEN DISPUTED THAT. I have only coming here asking for the article to be presented up to wikipedia's standards as they once were - neutral! What does that say about your own personal convictions? The users see it for what it is! Cowman2333 (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have requested semi-protection for the article as the result of the latest round of edits. Adelsheim (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2018

Q never accused Tom hanks, Sarah Ruth Ashcraft did on her twitter page. 2A01:E35:243D:A300:FDA0:8EF9:95E6:DEA8 (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2018

This Article fool of falsehoods which cite sources and opinions and not facts Trollmoleneutral (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dolotta (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2018

Hi I respectfully request that you change the introductory phrase from "QAnon is a conspiracy theory" to "QAnon literally means 'Q Anonymous' which refers to either an anonymous person/persons who are currently members of a discord bulletin board known as 8-Chan" [end of recommended change to your opening phrase]

The reason why I request this change is to transmit true grammatical context to the actual noun 'QAnon', so as to prevent descriptive bias from influencing a 1st time readers 'opinion' about the term, prior to establishing context (yet to be explained) <-- It is grammatically misleading to insert adjective bias to the introductory description of the noun (the post predicate explanation of the term is heavily weighted with opinion rather than descriptive context).

Kind regards, Tbtheonly. Tbtheonly (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources. Those sources overwhelmingly describe this as a conspiracy theory, and consistently emphasize the total lack of compelling evidence for QAnon's claims. Intentionally allowing people to come to false or unsupported conclusions would be fundamentally opposed to our goals as an encyclopedia. There are also other problems with this proposal, such as that 8chan and Discord are completely separate. Grayfell (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment As a more pedantic note, a lead that specific is against Wikipedia's lead section guidelines. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with TBtheonly on their suggested edit. The definition of QAnon makes far more sense than the emotive language of "conspiracy theory". At the very least, the definition of QAnon should be the leading sentence, then you can say something like "QAnon is thought of as a "conspiracy theory" by many sources (I would leave out the reliable part - even that is now diluted and in question, unless you want to name your "reliable" sources!)Angelor2000 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)angelor2000

Corrections

4chan is moderated, contrary to what the article states. That is, after all, why Qanon moved to 8chan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8102:4C12:CDEC:FCE5:EDE3:77FC (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources that substantiate that 4chan is moderated. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html https://web.archive.org/web/20080608050312/http://www.citypaper.com/columns/story.asp?id=15543 https://www.4chan.org/rules 96.245.211.43 (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2018

In paragraph 1, the term "falsely accused" should be changed to "accused". 99wgornicki99 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The claims are, indeed, false - and highly defamatory. We describe false claims about living people as false, per the Biographies of Living Persons policy. To change the wording, you would need to provide reliable sources which suggest that such claims are in any way substantiated or treated as true by any mainstream entity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2018

Remove the word "CONSPIRACY" that word only applies to something that can't be proven. Like the word "THEORY" Everything 'Q' puts out are fact and are proven to be fact day after day. 63.96.234.27 (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Not done Talkpages aren't platforms for conspiracy theory advocacy, and articles describe conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories according to mainstream coverage. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

End of ECP

The extended-confirmed protection of QAnon ends later tonight (00:54 GMT on September 22, 2018). Considering the considerable following it appears to have garnered over the summer, and its purveyors' tendencies to organize off-wiki to influence the article, I think we should probably brace ourselves. Adelsheim (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read the discretionary sanctions notices at the top of this page

They cover post-1932 American politics and biographies of living or recently decease persons. Let me know if more is needed, eg 1RR. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Off-Wiki organizing

Just so you're aware of off-Wiki organizing to influence this articl[1][2]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Much obliged. Adelsheim (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wow. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Incidents

We can now add the QAnon campaign has fuelled (sorry, did not meant to use cruel irony) the delirium of the suspected arsonist charged for the Holy Fire. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/forrest-gordon-accused-arson-california-fire-conspiracy-theorist-710023/ Balayka (Balayka) 18:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

There is not a strong connection or cause associated with the suspect as far as what I've read with QAnon. Most sources quote JJ MacNab (researcher on anti-government extremism, like ISIS), "Based on his social media pages, Clark is a sovereign citizen who believes in just about every kooky conspiracy out there, including QAnon, Pizzagate, Jade Helm 15, flat earth theories, NESARA, Jesuit conservancies, shape-shifting lizard overlords. You name it, he believes it."[3] One of the suspect's posts from one of last year's fire indicated fear of Agenda 21[4] and an on-camera brief interview he said MS-13 was after him[5]. Also, his "issues" have caused problems with his neighbors and local officials, not national politics. StrayBolt (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Bit too early for that from what I've read. We don't know if the suspect was directly inspired by QAnon. Speaking of incidents, I reckon we should definitely give the targeting of Avenatti a mention. Adelsheim (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

+ 1, will try to draft something Balayka 13:20 14 August 2018 UTC

I don't think we should say he was directly inspired by QAnon. The man is definitely a full blown unstable guy obsessed with all kind of conspiracy theories. But the current success of the QAnon campaign has crystallised his fantasies, as illustrated by the post on his FB timeline July 3rd. Forrest Clark has also claimed to be a "Sovereign citizen", movement whose ideology is tightly related to the QAnon one. https://www.newsweek.com/holy-fire-arson-suspect-domestic-terrorist-sovereign-citizen-threats-1068200 [User:Balayka|Balayka]] 13:48 14 August 2018 UTC

Found another QAnon-related incident. Seems significant enough. Adelsheim (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

This article does not reflect Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. It is filled with weasel words and does not give a balanced view of the subject. Since the author has locked the page, again showing their biased view point, we are unable to contest the neutrality of this page with a tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C001:28C5:9119:D26F:59A4:1D1D (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to suggest specific, actionable changes here, supported by verifiable references in reliable secondary sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2018

In the section "See also", "Nudge theory" should be removed as it completely unrelated to the QAnon conspiracy. The text throughout the page does not refer in any way to "Nudge theory". LouisNolin (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Content in a "See also" section need not be mentioned, but only tangentially related, IOW many people may not see any relation but some do. OTOH, if it's mentioned in the body of the article, that may be sufficient enough to supplant any inclusion as a See also link. It's often an either/or, but not both, situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You may want to ask the person who added it why they did so. Just search back (starting with big jumps) through the page history for who did it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with LouisNolin. There are better related concepts that are a fair bit more relevant to this page's content than nudge theory. For example: Filter bubble, Group_polarization, Groupshift and Woozle effect all seem to me way more interesting and useful than nudge theory for readers of this article wishing to read more. ZEQFS (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Hhkohh (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Photo of Pence with Q guy

I consider it highly unlikely Pence had known of the guy with the Q patch before their fleeting encounter that just happened to be captured in a photo. IMO the photo creates a dubious impression Pence associates with Q people or endorses their views. I suggest the photo be removed. soibangla (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No encounter between a Vice President and the public is truly random. I guarantee you that the people Pence was photographed with were vetted in advance, so either the VP's staff made a mistake, or they were aware of the officer's views and it either didn't concern them, or they saw some positive value in playing to Trump's base of support. In any case, this incident was reported in reliable media sources, and the article makes no claim whatsoever that Pence himself was aware of the patch. It simply shows that the event happened. If any inference can be drawn, it is the obvious one that at least one member of a metropolitan police force, the people we rely on to keep us safe, subscribes to extremely fringe political conspiracy theories. That's an important thing to know, and can't (and shouldn't) be swept under the rug. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we should err on the conservative and presume "the VP's staff made a mistake" by not noticing the patch or not being aware of its meaning. We should not assume that everyone in Pence's advance team and entourage is with Q or even knows about Q. That "at least one member of a metropolitan police force, the people we rely on to keep us safe, subscribes to extremely fringe political conspiracy theories" is noteworthy, but not necessarily in any relationship to Pence. soibangla (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't have to make any "presumptions" whatsoever, all we have to do is report what reliable sources, and they say that this incident happened, as recorded by an official White House photographer. What you apparently want is to apply some whitewash and pretend the incident never occurred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

"What you apparently want is to apply some whitewash and pretend the incident never occurred." Um...no. soibangla (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've taken a look at your edit history, so, um...yes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's quite a convincing counter-argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

They are all lying. Just sayin' We're done here. Bye. soibangla (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, now that's a compelling counter-argument. I withdraw my previous statements, with apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Errors in article-

The conspiracy theory was initially promoted by Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi,[9] but in May 2018 Right Wing Watch reported that Jones and Corsi had ceased to support QAnon, declaring the source to now be "completely compromised".[13]

This first part of this statement is categorically false and the source is unsubstantiated. Q started in 4chan /pol months prior to any popular conspiracy shows ever mentioning or reporting on it. The second part detailing their objection in any support of Q is accurate. This correction is made with no political/economic bias, but providing pure truth. Suggestion for improvement would be just to remove the first error, something like this-

Right Wing Watch reported on May 2018 that Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi had ceased to support QAnon, declaring the source to now be "completely compromised".[13]

Or given the pure political bias of the source, remove it entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.229.138.205 (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello @138.229.138.205: good argument, but I don't entirely agree:

• You could argue the word "initially" is vague, but I don't at all think it implies that Jones/Corsi supported Q prior to 4/8chan, just that they were among the more notable folks to cover it early on. Ideally it'd be great to nail down exactly when Jones started to put out media about Q to clarify the timeline. You would agree that from X until May or so, Alex Jones and Corsi supported (or at least covered with some sympathy) the QAnon movement?
• RWW is a source with an agenda, but it's used here because its article specifically tackles the Jones/Q falling-out. That said, I'm seeing that Media Matters and Daily Dot have similar articles from May, so maybe we could either replace the RWW source and/or add a different source that says basically the same thing.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

CONCERN: I believe the 24% statistic cited from the Washington Post poll is incorrect. The 24 from the poll is a temperature metric indicating negative sentiment. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/30/the-qanon-conspiracy-movement-is-very-unpopular-our-new-poll-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b15592a1956e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.67.165 (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Movement?

I will no longer contribute financially to Wikipedia until the biased nature of this reporting has the stigmatism of "conspiracy theory" removed from the Q movement. The use of this term is clearly a hypocritical one and needs serious consideration by all Wikipedia readers. A "theory" is something that does not exist. Conspiracies take place every day. Calling Q followers "conspiracy theorists" is like saying anyone who follows the #METOO or #WOMENSRIGHTS or any other positively motivated movement is nothing but conspiracy theorists. Remove your opined inclusion of this false term or forever be labeled what many, many people have exclaimed before... that Wikipedia is not a trusted source for information. Questions? emailbullock@gmail. 107.139.73.142 (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Why are we avoiding the term "conspiracy thoery" and instead using the "movement" euphemism? Our sources all call it a conspiracy theory, we should stick to that. — Strongjam (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" does not make sense in its current usage. Thousands of people sitting and gathering evidence is definitely a movement. You could get away with tagging controversial on the end, but adding "conspiracy theory" is at best editorializing. Content without source material is just as stomped down there as it is here. — Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D080:BB00:2532:AA84:DD8C:23B4 (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Look at the footnotes: basically every mainstream media source refers to this as a "conspiracy theory." Just because a lot of people believe it, doesn't mean it's true. And the word "controversial" is famously cited on Wikipedia as a word *not* to use because it's usually a sign of waffling rather than actually describing the situation. Until respected news sources stop calling it a "conspiracy theory", that's what we should call it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

>respected news sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.203.94 (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Ahem, just because mainstream media doesn't believe it, doesn't mean it isn't true. That mainstream media pushes it as a "conspiracy theory" gives it additional legitimacy in the opinion of many, especially given how many times since 2016 the mainstream media's "conspiracy theories" have turned out to be true (for example, Trump wiretapping). Disclosure, I'm not one of those many, but your premise here is too weak. "Mainstream media doesn't believe it" is not sufficiently authoritative criteria to label something a "conspiracy theory" without additional support. 172.10.237.153 (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sidestepping the nonsense about conspiracy theories that have "turned out to be true," it fits any definition you could possibly put forth for what constitutes a "conspiracy theory." Common parlance it's a belief that powerful nefarious forces are secretly conspiring to carry out various illicit plots, some nonsense about child sex rings, satanism, whatever. I mean whether or not conspiracy theory has a negative ring to it, this QAnon stuff very clearly is a collection of various conspiracy theories. I mean I'd accept the point that just because MSM says it isn't true doesn't mean that it actually isn't but since when is Wikipedia's job determining whether something can be proven to be true? It's a resource meant to simply present information. Yes, it's a conspiracy theory, yes it is held by a small fringe group. Sure they've presented at best minimal evidence to back up anything they say but that really goes to the quality or accuracy of the theory, which ultimately isn't the point of Wikipedia other than to simply point out as a matter of fact there is really no evidence presented substantiating the claims made outside of websites and message boards repeating the same claims over and over again. But no matter how accurate or supported it is, it's still a conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.203.211 (talk • contribs) 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble imagining our Paul is dead page restyled to use the word "movement". This conspiracy theory is no more credible than that one, nor has it been more passionately advocated by more people. I myself spent a few sleepovers listening to Beatles' records backwards. QAnon is a conspiracy theory, and will remain a conspiracy theory unless and until the conspiracy it posits is confirmed. Cranberry sauce. Laodah 00:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

conspiracy theory is not an incorrect term until such time that it's proven true. once a conspiracy "theory" is proven, then it becomes a conspiracy. 9/11 was a conspiracy by extremists. the term "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation but in my view it should not necessarily be. PumpkinGoo (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

8.6.18 Buzzfeed Article Strongly Suggests QAnon Is a Hoax ~ Should There Be a "Possible Hoax" Subsection?

Buzzfeed published an article[6] today with the title "It's Looking Extremely Likely That QAnon Is A Leftist Prank On Trump Supporters." Should a section or subsection of the article be included to document reportage of hoax potential? Siberian Husky (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

All reliable sources I've seen either directly state or tacitly support that this is a hoax. It seems a bit silly for Buzzfeed to have presented this as some sort of revelation. There doesn't seem to be much in the Buzzfeed source that isn't already in the article, except for the Luther Blissett (nom de plume) and Q (novel) info. This book's brief popularity among leftists is also the reason they claim this is a hoax by leftists. It could be leftists, of course, but this is still pretty weak. That said, the 1999 novel seems like it warrants a sentence or two. Grayfell (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

why does it matter what buzzfeed thinks? the only thing matters is what is their claim based on. as long as there isnt any hard evidence to base their claim or counter-claim on, their opinion should be disregarded in my view.PumpkinGoo (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Q-anon originally inspired by followers of Gary Spivey (human Q-tip hair) the faith healer

I found this article not to be definitive enough about the beliefs of this group, so I will attempt to clarify it:

The deepest held beliefs of Q-anon are simply, in a quote paraphrasing the late Isaac Asimov:

"My ignorance is better than your knowledge."

It is an anti-intellectual movement that is anti-science, anti-global warming, pro-home religious schooling, and prone to promulgate almost any political conspiracy theory they see as furthering this agenda or otherwise disruptive of an educational system that teaches much of anything useful to society. As the above quote would indicate, in areas other than fundamentalist or extremist religion, the followers of Q-anon are stupid to a fault, and like other religious fundamentalist causes, view mobile communications technology and associated with social networking and propaganda dissemination as a means to an end ordained by their God.

Fundamentalist religious organizations like Q-anon believe that the science that gave humanity the miracle of flight or the engineering skills to build skyscrapers so that planes carrying innocent passengers could be flown into the side of tall buildings that are not houses of worship. The Q-anon movement should be considered armed and dangerous for exactly this reason.

Recently the Q-anon movement has been pro-Trump, but one should not expect that it will remain politically aligned with anyone who has shown any indication that they will listen or align themselves politically for reasons not related to the interests of fundamentalist religion in the Bible Belt of the United States. Danshawen (talk)danshawen —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Danshawen: Wikipedia only cites, summarizes, and paraphrases professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without commentary, nor addition, nor original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we get that website added to the Wikipedia spam blacklist?

Don't want to list the page to give it any extra attention, but if you check the history you'll see IP addresses and throwaway accounts trying to add the page. To avoid having to semiprotect the page just over that, perhaps an admin can add the site to the global spam blacklist? Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gatemansgc: I listed it at the spam project, which seems the right approach. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Gatemansgc: Added. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thank you! Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 22:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2019

Change: a presumably American[8] individual that may have later grown to include multiple individuals, To: an alleged American individual, that may have later joined forces with other individuals, all claiming... AlphaWren (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

We don't know who this is, but this person or people uses the phrase "My fellow Americans". Nobody else is alleging that they are American, they are implying it, and sources are presuming it for lack of an alternative.

What added clarity is "joined forces" intended to provide? Grayfell (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"Falsely Accused" and "Widely Characterized"

In the second paragraph, it says, "The conspiracy theory, mainly popularized by supporters of President Trump under the names The Storm and The Great Awakening, has been widely characterized as...", given how close the election was, can we give a little more credit to the number of supporters President Trump has? Granted, Trump's base is not known to be as actively involved in the majority of mainstream news sources as Trump's detractors, but Trump's base is by no means small, and the tone of this article makes it seem as though the people paying attention to QAnon is a tiny minority of Americans. To fix this, I propose changing the sentence to say, "has been characterized as...", (removing the word "widely"), or to say "has been widely characterized by its detractors as...".

The above argument in mind... In the first paragraph, where it says, "The user has falsely accused numerous liberal Hollywood actors...", although there is a lack of evidence for the accusations, the accusations received no small amount of attention, and given that there hasn't been a formal investigation into the claims, shouldn't we remove the word "falsely" from that, since it presupposes a conclusion with which a significant number of people disagree?

Epistemologically, we have two groups here. One group thinks Q is legit, another doesn't. Both groups believe they are privy to sufficient evidence that they suppose their views are not refutable (as with nearly every argued point of view). Apparently, neither group is able to fully convince the other; so without that kind of closure, it's unfair to suppose that your "unsupported refutation" is any better than Q's "unsupported accusation". And, in general, it's not rational to out any claim, no matter how unlikely it seems, unless there is evidence against it. For example, there's lots of evidence supporting the current theories about origin of life and evolution, but it's still called a "theory" because it's not proven; and although the probability of life evolving to its current complexity on on earth within the geologically evident timeframe is quite low, nobody's putting "false" in front of claims on Darwin's wiki. Without getting too sidetracked, what I'm saying is, if a sufficient number of people hold to an opinion, that opinion should be treated as potentially credible unless objectively proven otherwise, regardless of the weight of probability against it. 63.255.126.132 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

1 - We are not here to bolster the numbers of Trump's supporters. QAnon believers are a tiny proportion of the population, the vast majority of people don't even know about it.

2 - There is zero evidence to support the QAnon allegations. They are clearly false, as they have no basis in reality.

3 - "Evolution is just a theory" is a tired misunderstanding of the term theory as used by scientists. A scientific theory is heavily supported by evidence.

There's no "significant" number of QAnon supporters, and the entire concept is not credible. It's a made up 4chan joke to see how many people they could get to believe it. So you're stuck in the unenviable position of either being a sucker, or someone trying to keep the joke alive. Either way, it's not going to get any traction here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

far right?

Is it really a "far right" conspiracy theory? The only source we have is splcenter and I highly doubt that's a neutral source. Also, if 50% of floridians heard of QAnon and 25% support it, is wikipedia saying that 25% of floridians are "far right"? Something does not add up. i think there is a tendency to smear political opponents as "far right" and that's fine, just not on wikipedia. i think it should be changed to "ring wing" or something like that because it's not just some fringe group of people who accept it. PumpkinGoo (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually yes, it is just a fringe group of people who accept it. If 25% of Floridians denied climate change, Wikipedia would still say climate change is a fact. Facts aren't popularity contests. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't address the assertion that the article makes in the very lede, that QAnon is a "far right" conspiracy theory. Is there any evidence that it's even a "right wing" conspiracy theory?? 68.113.225.4 (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The evidence is in the reliable sources cited in the article. Wikipedia summarizes such sources. If you are aware of reliable sources that report that QAnon is neither far right nor right wing, then provide links to those sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

As long as reliable sources say it is far-right (and a quick google search verifies that they do [7][8][9][10]), then Wikipedia should as well. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think citing the links you've provided as RS is dubious, at best, but that's not really my ax to grind. Certainly they are not peer-reviewed. 68.113.225.4 (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Citing The New York Times and Washington Post as RS is not "dubious". Their reliability has been discussed and assessed, and the Wikipedia community agreed that they are reliable for most cases. As it stands, no RSes have been presented that contradict the far right label. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: On this this topic they're not reliable. --01:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"Southern Poverty Law Center" is neutral? Really? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC) 24% Floridians surely not "far right". --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not "neutrality" we're looking for, it's reliability. See [{WP:Reliable sources]] and search WP:RSN for "SPLC". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The idea that this cannot be a far-right conspiracy theory because a significant % of Floridians believe in it is utter tosh, I'm afraid. And why yes, the SPLC is considered a reliable source on the whole. Ironically, both black and white supremacists and ideologues go after the SPLC. Jeez, I wonder why?--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a terrible argument. What is a good argument however is the fact that the FBI removed the SPLC as a valid source for defining extremism due to their own heavily skewed extreme biases. If that's good enough for the FBI it should be good enough for Wikipedia as well.Jfraatz (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I tried to clean up misinterpretations of poll results, saying now 58% of Floridians are familiar enough with QAnon to have an opinion about it, among whom gave a poor average rating of only 24 (range 0 to 100) of the conspiracy theory. Here is an article on FoxNews.com; saying they are members of the fringe, right-wing group QAnon which believes in massive conspiracies. StrayBolt (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected page

A protected page? So we can't correct what's wrong. We're all finding out that this "conspiracy theories" are true. Let's open the page for correction. Palatable (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

None of the conspiracy theories promoted by QAnon have been shown true. This page is currently protected due to vandalism. If you have a suggestion for improving the page, make it here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

sources

dead links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.237.88 (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you want to expand on that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Reference section

The reference section has an empty 'Citations' subheading, then all of the citations appear under the 'Tweets' subheading. JezGrove (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads-up. I've made some changes to the layout; tell me if they work? —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Javert2113 - looks fine now. Best wishes, JezGrove (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia article beginning with "X is a far right etc...."

This has to be about the 10th Wikipedia article I've looked at in the past few weeks beginning with "X is a far right etc..."

This is a serious problem that apparently no one at Wikipedia seems concerned about.

Left and Far-Left activists, media outlets and organizations are engaging the tactic of labeling anything and everything they disagree with 'Far-Right' and 'Alt-Right.' They have been doing this for the last few years. In case you need it spelling out for you, Wikipedia: LEFT AND FAR-LEFT WEBSITES THAT ENGAGE IN THIS TACTIC ARE NOT 'RELIABLE SOURCES' AND CERTAINLY NOT EVIDENCE OF YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT SOMETHING IS FAR-RIGHT.

This has to be the most reckless form of it considering that the 'QANON HUB' site specifically states on its homepage that Q-anon is not partisan, is for everyone both Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, Liberal or Conservative who love America.

So it would seem that it is Wikipedia's view that loving America is a Far-Right viewpoint.

It's amazing that it's come to this.

Can someone at Wikipedia give me an example of something that is moderately Right? Something that is Center-Right or moderately Right Wing? Because it seems that literally every article on things that even slightly Right of Center (and even Left of Center) are declared 'Far-Right' in the opening sentence. It literally makes no sense for this many 'Far-Right' people and organizations to exist because if they did Far-Right would be a mainstream view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Des22z (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your opinion. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so if you have sources that indicate QAnon is not far-right in origin, please feel free to work them into the article. If you need help figuring out how to do that, let me know. However, judging by your contributions here and elsewhere, I think you need to re-align your left-right compass and understand what sorts of things are far right, Far left, and more moderate. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I will agree with the OP to the extent that it is a total drag to see how many far-right organizations have become notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, though, that's real world problem, not a Wikipedia problem, one that I hope will abate in time. In the meantime, if reliable sources say that these groups are "far-right", then we'll continue to report that they are "far-right". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Can someone at Wikipedia give me an example of something that is moderately Right? Something that is Center-Right or moderately Right Wing?

From a global perspective, the Democratic Party is Center-Right. So, there you go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say that pundit George Will is moderately right, from an American perspective. The National Review. The Republican Party prior to around 1990 -- when it began its long tack farther and farther right -- used to be, from an American point of view, "center-right". It even had a "liberal" (read "moderate") wing populated by those such as Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits. (From the American political POV, not the global perspective that HTF cites, the Democratic Party at the time was "center-left", where they would still be today if the Republicans hadn't pushed the center of American politics so far to the right that even a moderately liberal policy espoused by Democrats looks like "socialism" to some.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Other "moderately right-wing" notables include David Brooks, Bret Stephens, Kevin D. Williamson, and David Frum, just off the top of my head.

@Des22z: Typing in some variation of "is a center right" in the Wikipedia search bar returns lots of examples (e.g. [11] or [12]) Bennv3771 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

inaccurate or disingenuous information about "The FBI" lable. It was a field office and not headquarters

inaccurate or disingenuous information about "The FBI" lable. It was a field office and not hea Quillpusher007 (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• The article specifically says "An FBI 'Intelligence Bulletin' memo from the Phoenix Field Office", and never comes close to implying that the memo emanated from FBI headquarters. However, the memo itself says that it is an "FBI product" and that "The FBI assesses these conspiracy theories very likely will emerge, spread, and evolve ...", so it appears that, at least in this instance, the Phoenix office is speaking for the entire FBI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

QAnon is the person not the theory

QAnon refers to the person espousing the conspiracy theories, not the actual theory itself. 'Anon' is a 2nd person pronoun for any anonymous user. Referring to the "theory" as QAnon sounds stupid and hurts the page's credibility. 89.101.120.203 (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You apparently didn't see the note attached to the very first word in the lede. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You're obviously a shill, but don't worry that's just metonymy and in no way to be taken literally or to obfuscate the usage of a clear-cut term with a clear-cut meaning. OP, hurts the pages credibility? Perhaps read it more closely, that's impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holon (talk • contribs) Note added. This was a joke employing the use of irony. Saying the term 'shill' was just metonymy means it is substituted for some other (obscure) meaning. It is meant to be ironic--you don't know what I really mean just as the reader doesn't know what QAnon really refers to. This note is because it is clear the joke wasn't understood (or else. logically, the editors here seek would seem to wish to ban having some fun). Holon (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Holon warned for personal attack. Not sure who they're speaking to, but "shill" has no place in a talkpage discussion. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I was using as an example of metonymy to show the potential for obfuscation. Translation, the note attached to QAnon is obtuse conflation, obviously. Holon

The note attached is explanatory and informational. It obfuscates nothing. That you don;t agree with it is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Metonymy: "the substitution of the name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant, for example suit for business executive, or the turf for horse racing." It is a seldom used word [13], and use of seldom-used terms is shown to make reading more difficult [14]. Substitution of one thing for another is by definition obscuring to those unfamilar with such substitution. Obfuscate: "make obscure, unclear, or unintelligible". You're claiming a note on the very first word, which a reader needs to read in full for comprehension and which references three other/separate articles and includes a relatively obscure term that necessarily obscures for some readers, does not tend to impede clarity? Sure, we'll need to agree to disagree. Let's lighten up. Jokes combined with rhetorical devices don't harm people. Holon (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's nice that you can copy and paste definitions from a dictionary website, but calling someone a "shill" is a straight-forward violation of a Wikipedia policy, WP:No personal attacks, and you have been warned as such by Acroterion, a Wikipedia admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean you intended to obfuscate. The logical sequence would be to state actual meaning (QAnon is a person or group that has posted anonymously on 4chan and 8chan) and then proceed to explain the other sense in which the term is used. But I think that's what the OP suggested and I have literally zero interest in an edit war. As I said, how about we lighten the mood--ironic jokes don't harm anybody Holon (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2019

I would like a review of this material, there is a "Far right" claim and I am far from far right. QAnon has done nothing but tell me to think for myself and research for myself. I have and I see the BIAS is wide and far. 68.147.180.114 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

I would like to emphasize the word reliable. We cannot accept original research. Content must be supported by published sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Youtube videos, for example, are rarely usable for this information. Grayfell (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Kind of a paradox that inhaling "Q Drops" which tell you what to think about the deep dark secrets inside government could conceivably make anyone "think for themselves". More than likely, it just made you think what Q told you to think, and since that's different from what the rational people around you think, nad what the rational media reports, you become deluded that you're making up your own mind to think these bizarre thoughts. It's hardly unusual for a cult member to claim "no one told me to think this way, I came up with it myself," since that's the entire purpose of indoctrination, to make a person think that the things that have been drilled into them are their own thoughts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

'Conspiracy Theory' presupposes that QAnon is not genuine. Until it is proven one way or the other surely the most that can be said is that it is 'possibly a conspiracy theory'.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the section title says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pperrin uk (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and reliable sources describe it as a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying they 'reliably' know that Qanon is conspiracy theory? If so then a link to the proof should be included... if they are just considered 'generally reliable' sources that have described or claimed that Qanon as a conspiracy theory, then it is still just an unproven claim -- so it is misleading for it to be presented here as a fact. It should be qualified as 'believed to be...' or some such. Pperrin uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pperrin uk (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and reliable sources describe it as a conspiracy theory. We don't state that "reliable sources claim that the sky is often blue." Acroterion (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you accept the sky is blue because you trust someone who says so, or because someone has reliably shown that the visible light wavelength of 'blue' and the light wavelength of the sky are the same?... If QAnon turns out to be 'genuine' where would wikipedia stand on having called it a 'conspiracy theory'?... Wikipedia is now being uses as a 'primary source' -- maybe it should denounce those who use the 'wikipedia' name to claim authenticity and stop people using its articles in this way?Pperrin uk (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pperrin uk: All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. Wikipedia does not cite itself, so it doesn't matter if people misunderstand what Wikipedia is.

QAnon has been so contradictory and so disconnected from reality that I'm honestly ready to block you for gross incompetence for your advocacy of it. If you want your welcome to edit to continue, find a different topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, so, as Wikipedia just regurgitates other content, I guess you would be content for Wikipedia to disavow direct citations of its content? referring 'citers' to the original sources (if they consider them valid)? If you think I have advocated for qanon, you'd need to explain your reasoning... I have only challenged the use of the description 'conspiracy theory' for active, unresolved, issues.Pperrin uk (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Pperrin uk The first response to your initial edit here should have been adequate for you. soibangla (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pperrin uk: False balance between reality and something that is obviously wrong is not neutrality, it is no different than lying. Such false balance only enables those insane or stupid enough to have fallen for this bullshit, no one else. Final warning: if you do not stop asking us to create false balance here (or related topics, such as Pizzagate conspiracy theory), you will be shown the door. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a 'talk' page. Wikipedia have blocking for 'bad' editing of public articles, but I was not aware it had blocking to prevent discussion on talk pages. If you have no answer to what I am presenting, you are not obliged to respond at all.Pperrin uk (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian.thomson While I am discussing the principles of making claims that are then requoted elsewhere (so presenting wikipedia as a primary source), you seem more interested in the 'qanon' issue generally... the first thing on this page says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the QAnon article.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."... maybe you could reflect on this?Pperrin uk (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2019

There seems to be much confusion either accidental or intentional when information pertaining to Qanon is concerned. On George W Bush’s Wiki page you will notice that the white supremacists who loved him for invading the Middle East aren’t listed each time they commits a crime against a Muslim. Unclefuzzydix (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" not "conspiracy theory"

I think the article would be better off calling QAnon a "conspiracy theorist", albeit an unknown identity one, rather than a conspiracy theory, aka better English. Alex Jones is described as a conspiracy THEORIST, not theory. A person isn't a theory even if we don't know who they are. If I am missing something please let me know.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This is about the conspiracy theory generally known as "QAnon." Amusingly enough the person (or persons) who started it are now the least important aspect of the conspiracy mongering. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

Change: ... has been characterized as "baseless",[17][18][19] "unhinged",[20] and "evidence-free".[21]

to

has been characterized as "baseless",[17][18][19] "unhinged",[20] and "evidence-free"[21] by news outlets.

[their voice should matter, but they are just opinions nonetheless and should hence be identified AS "someone" (news outlets).] 84.52.226.62 (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, well, it's a bunch of news organizations, not just "sites". At some point we're not talking about opinions anymore. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

Source 24 is to a self-identified opinion article. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not opinions. Likewise source 2 links to Southern Poverty Center, an expressly political organization which exists, as the main page of their website expressly states, to "battle racial and social injustice." https://www.splcenter.org/ They are not a reliable source just as a right-wing activist website would not be. Citation 10's headline "The Storm is the New Pizzagate - Only Worse" contains loaded language. It is clearly not objective. Likewise with source 13, "As QAnon Goes Mainstream, Trump's Rallies Are Turning Darker." Citation 23 links to a self-identified "perspective" article, there defined as "Discussion of News Politics with a point of view," i.e. an opinion article. Citing opinion blogs just because they are published by powerful organizations instead of individuals does not make them anything more than online opinion blogs. These citations should be removed.Electro blob (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is a place for facts, not opinions." Not true. We are required by Jimbo to document the "sum of all human knowledge" as it's found in reliable sources, and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage. That includes opinions, which we often attribute. NPOV expressly allows the use of biased sources, and editors are required by NPOV to not censor those sources. We are supposed to document the bias and attribute it properly.

I have written an essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer: If you feel that opinions are necessary on Wikipedia, that is fine, but that means you must also be willing to include the opinions of those who hold to the QAnon conspiracy theory. Might I point out that some of the things in the article are not opinions, but outright lies, such as the claim that, ""The Storm" is an anticipated event in which thousands of people, members of the cabal, will be arrested, possibly sent to Guantanamo Bay prison or face military tribunals, and the U.S. military will brutally take over the country.[16] The result will be salvation and a utopia on earth." This is false. If this is true, you should cite an example of someone making this claim, and not Travis View, who clearly is not a believer in the QAnon conspiracy theory. If you can not provide a valid source for an example of this belief in real life, than it constitutes slander of the people you claim believe it. Electro blob (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. We have no obligation to repeat debunked fringe conspiracy nonsense of any political stripe. We merely state what reliable sources say about QAnon: that it's a concocted trollfest. Again, your personal disagreement with those sources is not relevant here. If you have reliable sources which say that there is anything real or true about anything in this conspiracy theory, please present them here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is an accepted reliable source on this encyclopedia. Your personal disagreement with that conclusion is noted, but irrelevant. Same goes for the other cited sources here. That you don't like what those sources conclude about QAnon is uninteresting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, Please defend your assertion that that SPLC is a reliable source. This is not your article. Your comment is irrelevent since you have not provided a defense of this source. Electro blob (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSP. There has been extensive and repeated discussion and consensus is repeatedly established that the SPLC's published opinions about hate groups are reliable and relevant to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It is impossible to provide a source to you, because according to your list, websites holding the opposite view are not reliable so long as they support conspiracy theories. For example, the Zero Hedge entry simply says that it is not reliable "due to its propagation of conspiracy theories." That is circular reasoning. A conspiracy theory can not be wrong because all the sites that support it support conspiracy theories, and are therefore unreliable. No one is obligated to use a "reliable" source by your standards, because your standards are inherently biased. The table says "As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source." and accepts it. Yet, the list also says "CECESNUR is an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest." Why is it that an advocacy group against far-right movements is reliable, but an advocacy group for religions is unreliable? How can a conspiracy theory be false because the source is a site that supports conspiracy theories? This list should not be taken seriously by any rational-minded person, even if it is the consensus. Wikipedia is by far the largest platform for public information in existence, and it should treat information fairly. This article should stop quoting hearsay about the QAnon conspiracy theory unless it can cite an example of the opinions that actually exists. Electro blob (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That's right. ZeroHedge, an entirely-anonymous/pseudonymous blog, is not treated the same as The New York Times, a widely-respected print and online newsgathering and publishing company. If you disagree with that concept, you quite simply disagree with this site's foundational policy of basing articles on what is published in reliable sources. And if you disagree with this site's foundational policies, you are probably not going to have a good time here, because you will not be permitted to edit in a manner which rejects those policies. Wikipedia is not a free speech platform, it's a project to build a freely-available encyclopedia on the Internet. You're welcome to help build it, but in so doing you're required to help build it the right way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

References

The facts vs myths

Probably I should just keep quiet, but this is a pet peeve of mine. First, I don't support QAnon or know anything much about it at all. I don't think for a moment that it's true, nor should we suggest that it is. But surely the "facts" that a wikipedia page should be reporting is that reliable sources SAY that X is a conspiracy theory, that they report that Y is baseless, unhinged, whatever - mot that "X is a conspiracy theory". Personal opinions aside, why is it Wikipedias job to make judgement calls and decide that something that many people beleive IS false? You could do the same to any religion; none are supported by evidence. You should report what the sources say, not give judgment on whether the sources are correct and which side is right. I'm not saying it should be given undue weight or whatever. You needn't include "the other side" from unreliable sources, for example. I just think it's not wikipedias place to chose the facts, merely to tell people what OTHER, reliable sources SAY is fact. By telling them "this is what the sources say". They can judge for themselves. This is basically what we do already, but when you write it as "X IS Y" people read it differently from "according to A, evidence shows X is Y" I've brought this up on other pages as well, don't know if has ever made the slightest difference. It feels to me like saying "Christianity is a myth and conspiracy theory, a baseless and evidence-free delusion", or something like that. Maybe that is what Wikipedia says. I don't know. You can certainly find plenty of sources that will say so, but why is it Wikipedia's job to make that call? The FACT is that many people say it's bunk, and that many people beleive it regardless. Anything more is either just putting their words onto Wikipedia as Truth or putting your own personal opinion, no matter how convinced you may be. This is not the same as pretending it's valid, it's just a matter of changing "it IS a conspiracy" to "an alleged conspiracy". Or whatever. Because as far as I'm concerned that's as far as wikipedia should go, on anything of this nature. That is all.

Idumea47b (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so the goal with this article is to present a summary of the topic. We do this by summarizing reliable sources. Pretty much everything any article says as a statement of fact should be supported by a reliable source (or at least supportable by sources, per WP:V). So if we said something like "QAnon is reported to be a conspiracy theory by reliable sources" instead of "QAnon is a conspiracy theory" we would be giving this conspiracy theory special treatment. Both versions are correct, but the longer one is using distancing language to imply that it's just an opinion (see WP:WEASEL). Even if it is an opinion, it's the only opinion Wikipedia has reliable sources for, so why bother casting doubt on it?

Another way to look at it is that this would be a subtle form of false balance. We are not trying to present "both sides" as being equivalent. We summarize what reliable sources say, and that's about all we do. The unreliable sources, the ones which say it isn't a conspiracy theory, do not get a seat at the table, because that's what "unreliable" means on Wikipedia.

The overwhelming majority of sources obviously don't say that "Christianity is a delusion", so this is a false comparison. QAnon is a fringe theory. Christianity is a mainstream belief. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove February 11th, 2020 Trump comment

Can we remove Trump's quote from the "Identity of Q" section? He was referring to the Anonymous New York Times author from 2018/

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/my-peter-trump-trade-advisor-peter-navarro-is-reportedly-hunting-anonymous/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.48.211 (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2020

Can we remove the line at the bottom of the 'Identity of Q' section? Trump was being asked about who the Anonymous New York Times author was, not about QAnon. https://twitter.com/johnrobertsFox/status/1227666863678803968

Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office on February 11, 2020, President Trump was asked if he knew who "anonymous" is. He replied, "I don’t want to say, but you’d be surprised."[55] BearFish56 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Done You're source is poor. But so is the source in that entry, and I can't find a good source. O3000 (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2020

"Q has falsely accused numerous liberal Hollywood actors, Democratic politicians, and high-ranking officials of engaging in an international child sex trafficking ring, "

Claims missing citation.

Making claims at the first-half of a complex sentence doesn't absolve the need for citation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed Mildsaucewiki (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be well sourced in the body. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please, clarify!

It says:

Harassment of Jim Acosta

At a Trump rally in Tampa, Florida on July 31, 2018, Trump supporters exhibited hostile behavior toward CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta. Exponents of QAnon-related theories were at the rally.[106]

First, you don't know that everyone who attended the rally was a Trump supporter. Some people could have been simple attendees.

Second, it should be "some", unless you're saying that every Trump supporter there exhibited hostile behavior.

Third -- and, most egregiously -- without any warrant, you connect the crowd's "hostile [according to whose judgment?] behavior" towards C. N. N.'s Acosta with "[e]xponents" of "QAnon-related [?] theories" who were also there. How do you classify, "QAnon-related"? How do you know QAnon-related theorists were there? Also, where is your evidence that such people also exhibited hostile behavior towards Acosta?

All of these points need, I think, clarification. If you can prove or source them -- fine. Otherwise, they look to me like bias.Mwidunn (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)mwidunn

Your objections are addressed by the citation itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia article beginning with "X is a far right etc...."

Not a general forum for discussion of the political spectrum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
EDIT - After responding to the replies my initial post received, it appears Wikipedia has deleted the entire conversation. Luckily, I saved it to a txt file because I suspected something like this would happen, so I'm posting the entire conversation here. This has to be about the 10th Wikipedia article I've looked at in the past few weeks beginning with "X is a far right etc..." This is a serious problem that apparently no one at Wikipedia seems concerned about. Left and Far-Left activists, media outlets and organizations are engaging the tactic of labeling anything and everything they disagree with 'Far-Right' and 'Alt-Right.' They have been doing this for the last few years. In case you need it spelling out for you, Wikipedia: LEFT AND FAR-LEFT WEBSITES THAT ENGAGE IN THIS TACTIC ARE NOT 'RELIABLE SOURCES' AND CERTAINLY NOT EVIDENCE OF YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT SOMETHING IS FAR-RIGHT. This has to be the most reckless form of it considering that the 'QANON HUB' site specifically states on its homepage that Q-anon is not partisan, is for everyone both Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, Liberal or Conservative who love America. So it would seem that it is Wikipedia's view that loving America is a Far-Right viewpoint. It's amazing that it's come to this. Can someone at Wikipedia give me an example of something that is moderately Right? Something that is Center-Right or moderately Right Wing? Because it seems that literally every article on things that even slightly Right of Center (and even Left of Center) are declared 'Far-Right' in the opening sentence. It literally makes no sense for this many 'Far-Right' people and organizations to exist because if they did Far-Right would be a mainstream view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Des22z (talk • contribs) Thank you for your opinion. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so if you have sources that indicate QAnon is not far-right in origin, please feel free to work them into the article. If you need help figuring out how to do that, let me know. However, judging by your contributions here and elsewhere, I think you need to re-align your left-right compass and understand what sorts of things are far right, Far left, and more moderate. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC) My political compass is just fine, thank you, and your response is just another example of Wikipedia's increasing attempts to push false narratives about what constitutes Far Left and Far Right. You know as well as I do that any sources I cite will be instantly removed - Wikipedia defines "reliable sources" as any source that pushes a Leftist narrative. I have witnessed this on countless articles - Alex Jones is described by Wikipedia as Far Right and know for a fact that is not the case because I have followed Alex Jones's 'work' for years - not because I like him, but because I despise him. He's a conspiracy theorist whackjob who would push all kinds of falsehoods and misinformation to make his theories seem more credible, and I followed his work specifically to debate with his fans and debunk his theories. And as much as I might hate the guy, the one thing he definitely is not is 'Far Right'. The notion that he is is actually absurd - half his conspiracy theories involve Nazis trying to take over the world, not exactly something I'd expect a Far Right person to worry about. He was considered Left Wing until he spoke out against Hillary Clinton, then all of a sudden you people started calling him Far Right which is what you people always do the moment anyone criticizes the Democrat candidate for President. I wouldn't mind so much if you just admitted it. It's the fact that you insist on this pathetic pretense of "neutrality" which is utterly laughable at this point that makes this so insufferable. I can't believe I once donated money to you people.Des22z (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I will agree with the OP to the extent that it is a total drag to see how many far-right organizations have become notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, though, that's real world problem, not a Wikipedia problem, one that I hope will abate in time. In the meantime, if reliable sources say that these groups are "far-right", then we'll continue to report that they are "far-right". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC) I'm not going to pretend you honestly believe what you wrote there. You know as well as I do that there has not been an explosion of far-right organizations in recent years. You know that the vast majority of these organizations being dubbed "far-right" by Wikipedia and Leftist media are not, in fact, far-right. You know perfectly well that this is a tactic to malign any critics of the Left, a tactic that you yourself are using. The Leftist tactic of falsely labeling enemies as "far-right" is what has exploded in recent years, and you know it. Fortunately, more and more people are getting wise to this tactic every day. The only sad thing is that by obsessively lying and falsely labeling innocent groups as "far-right" - when you know full well that they are not - you are causing people to let their guard down to the danger of real far-right groups and organizations like the so-called Alt-Right and people like David Duke. It's ironic that people like yourself, who pretend to care about the danger of far-right organizations as a pretense for maligning your enemies, are ultimately helping far-right groups and organizations.Des22z (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Actually, it is well documented that there has been a rather large increase in far-right organizations in recent years in many countries. O3000 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Can someone at Wikipedia give me an example of something that is moderately Right? Something that is Center-Right or moderately Right Wing? From a global perspective, the Democratic Party is Center-Right. So, there you go. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC) No, it isn't. The Democrat Party of America is no "center-right", not by a national definition or a global definition. I can't decide if that was just plain ignorance or an attempt at an insult. Nether would surprise me at this point. I would say that pundit George Will is moderately right, from an American perspective. The National Review. The Republican Party prior to around 1990 -- when it began its long tack farther and farther right -- used to be, from an American point of view, "center-right". It even had a "liberal" (read "moderate") wing populated by those such as Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits. (From the American political POV, not the global perspective that HTF cites, the Democratic Party at the time was "center-left", where they would still be today if the Republicans hadn't pushed the center of American politics so far to the right that even a moderately liberal policy espoused by Democrats looks like "socialism" to some.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "...looks like Socialism to some." would that be the policies espoused by Democrat candidates who openly declare themselves to be Socialists like Bernie Sanders and AOC? The fact there are Democrat candidates calling themselves Socialists yet you are somehow able to rationalize how it's the Republicans who are responsible for the perception of the Democrat Party becoming increasingly Socialist demonstrates how truly dishonest your agenda is better than I ever could. So you're trying to push the absurd narrative that it is the Republican Party who have pushed the center of American politics to the far-Right which is why the Democrat Party appears to be on the far-Left....that makes literally no sense whatsoever. No one Party controls the Center and no one Party can move the center, they can only move their own position on the spectrum - saying that one Party has "moved the center" makes literally no sense. The reality - that you're well aware of - is that the Democrat Party have moved to the far-Left with increasingly radical abandon. As such, people on the far-Left don't realize they're on the far-Left, they think they're still the moderate Left. When they look at the moderate-Left they think they're looking at the center, and when they look at the center they think they're looking at the moderate-Right. It's the Democrats that have become radical, not the Republicans, and you know it. But good look pushing that false narrative.Des22z (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Other "moderately right-wing" notables include David Brooks, Bret Stephens, Kevin D. Williamson, and David Frum, just off the top of my head. @Des22z: Typing in some variation of "is a center right" in the Wikipedia search bar returns lots of examples (e.g. [15] or [16]) Bennv3771 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC) And sooner or later those examples will be changed to "far-right" by Wikipedia. You people call Ben Shapiro "far-right" and he's about as moderate and "standard" right as you can get. Your pretense is embarrassing at this point. RS have called Shapiro extremely conservative. However, his article here does not call him far-right. Indeed, it says he is a target of criticism by the alt-right. O3000 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Qanon

Not a forum for your views on who constitutes a "leftist" and why they're so bad
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Protected article states that "numerous" Hollywood and Democrat party figures have been "falsely accused" of various vile actions. No matter how wild the allegations, one would have to have proof that the accused did not take part in the alleged acts in order to dismiss out of hand the accusations. That there is no evidence that someone did something does not prove they did not do it. "Accused without credible evidence" would be an accurate and logically defensible statement for the writer of the Qanon article to make. The standards for logical non-fiction article writing are not the same as the standards for criminal prosecution. MurMiles (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC) "A false accusation is a claim or allegation of wrongdoing that is untrue and/or otherwise unsupported by facts" StrayBolt (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC) "A false accusation is a claim or allegation of wrongdoing that is untrue and/or otherwise unsupported by facts" In that case every declaration that QANON, the Proud Boys and Alex Jones are "far-right" by Wikipedia constitutes a false accusation. Not a single one of the citations for those accusations on those pages refer to any facts, data or evidence, but instead a baseless assertion (lie) by a Leftist source or sources who are known to hate all three of those groups and individuals. I am not attempting to turn this into a forum or to violate any rules, and if I have done so I apologize, but it is absolutely absurd and incredibly inconsistent for anyone from Wikipedia to be pointing to definitions of "false accusations" and using that as an excuse to censor / not alter an article when Wikipedia itself supports countless false accusations when those false accusations are made by Leftists against the "correct" people and organizations (i.e anyone right of Stalin) and doesn't require Leftist sources to offer a scrap of evidence to support their baseless accusations of "far-right". To reiterate: this is not an attempt at violating rules or turning this into a forum debate, I am genuinely baffled by StrayBolt's answer given Wikipedia's clearly relaxed and accepting attitude towards false accusations made by Leftist sources against the above three groups/individuals - it seems like brazen hypocrisy - and I am genuinely asking for an explanation that will not only help me understand but also help others, including MurMiles. What am I saying - I know this will be deleted just like every other post drawing attention to Wikipedia's biased agenda... Des22z (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

71.212.221.162 (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Your page is a joke about QAnon, WWG1WGA, etc. better fix it all

@71.212.221.162: This is not a coherent request, and has been closed. Please read Wikipedia:Edit requests § General considerations. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"Far-right conspiracy theory" - How can a theory have a political agenda?

I don't see how QAnon is actually either far-right or a conspiracy theory, but I digress; if the general theory is that an individual and their supporters are being targeted, why does that make the theory itself have a political bias? It may happen to defend someone who is on the political right (Wikipedia doesn't say that Donald Trump is far-right.) but the source 7 (https://fortune.com/2018/08/01/qanon-conspiracy-trump-tampa-rally/) only uses the phrase "far right" in the title and contains no substantive evidence (let alone proof) of QAnon being far right. Source 8 (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/business/trump-social-media-summit.html) has NO mention of "far right", only "right wing". There is one brief mention of QAnon in this source, where it mentions how Donald Trump invited a QAnon promoter to the white house. Incorrect sources.

At the very least, 'far right' should be replaced with 'right wing' - but I think the political insertion here is neither neutral nor necessary. The sources given for 'far right' [7,8] are illegitimate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernabean (talk • contribs) 12:42, January 11, 2020 (UTC)

• Bernabean, if you think those sources are illegitimate, you probably shouldn't be editing anything you've been editing, except maybe Talk:Short interest ratio. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Of course conspiracy theories can have a political agenda. QAnon is labeled a "far right conspiracy theory" throughout reliable sources.[17][18][19] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Point of order: cite 7 is actually five different citations under a single link for brevity (2-6). We have multiple reliable sources identifying QAnon as a far-right movement. Simply declaring citations as "illegitimate" is not sufficient to alter this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

What precisely is "far-right" about QAnon? If you actually read the articles cited for that attribution; 2. The SPLC does not say that QAnon is Far-Right, but rather that it is allegedly popular among the far-right, as based by their "Hate Tracker" (with a dead hyperlink). 3. The NBC Article is predominantly about how Far-Right personalities are denouncing QAnon, while claiming (without a source) that the far-right originally propped it up. 4-5. The Washington Post article makes only one reference to the Far-Right, claiming that QAnon has "animated the Far Right fringes if the Internet". Again, unsourced. The article itself is about a photograph taken with Vice President Pence. The Sun-Sentinel.com article is about this same photograph. 6. The Fortune Magazine Article is behind a paywall, and only notes QAnon as being "Far Right" in the title, with no supporting evidence - as was mentioned in the original comment.

While there are certainly a number of sources that make the claim, none of the five sources provided gives evidence to it, or even expound on why they reached that conclusion. Some of the articles, while from well known outlets, are quite clearly biased. Statements such as "QAnon, the collection of baseless conspiracy theories" and "QAnon is the stuff of parody" in the Washington Post article are hard to consider as objective information, especially without any sourcing to back up those assertions whatsoever.

My reading of the Wikipedia's rules for attribution lead me to believe that biased sources should use an in-text attribution rather than an in-line attribution. I think that as Bernabean stated, a "Right Wing" attribution is more solidly supported than "Far Right", or I could even go as far as an in-text attribution of its consideration as "Far-Right" by some parties. As things are, however, I don't see a good reason to label QAnon with such a highly charged term. Surely we should take a great degree of care in how we paint the subjects of our articles?

I will leave it alone for a few days, in order to allow for a reply. After that, I may edit it to say "Right Wing" instead. Here are a few sources, some more recent than those in the original attribution. 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-qanon-right-wing-conspiracy-theory-surfaces-at-trump-rally-2018-8?op=1 2. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/30/qanon-4chan-rightwing-conspiracy-theory-explained-trump 3. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-qanon-the-conspiracy-theory-group-showing-up-to-trump-rallies 4. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-45040614

24.75.118.172 (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Theophrastus

SPLC uses both far-right and alt-right. Alt-right is a segment of the far-right. NBC says the far-right are those that helped the theory gain prominence. WaPo says Q are conspiracy theories that have animated the far-right. The Sun Sentinel says QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory. These are reliable secondary sources stating that Q is a set of theories supported by the far-right. They don’t need to detail their sources or provide evidence or expound on why they reached conclusions, as you suggest. And they are not biased, as you claim. O3000 (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Isaac Kappy

Seems there should be a mention in the article about QAnon-supporting actor Isaac Kappy, who repeatedly harassed Seth Green and accused him and other individuals of pedophilia before committing suicide, with his death itself becoming the subject of conspiracy theories. See [20]. 2600:1014:B025:7EFA:CCBC:F540:6B77:138F (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Fascist

The policies QAnon believers embrace (mass arrests, martial law, internment camps, summary executions in some cases) would clearly amount to fascism if actually carried out. In addition they tend to embrace fascism-adjacent foreign leaders such as Vladimir Putin. Here is an example of a source linking the movement to fascism. 2600:1014:B01D:B988:25AE:B858:95D7:5AC5 (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Grass Valley Charter School fundraiser

This paragraph is very unclear, it is difficult to understand what actually happened in this incident. I assume the GVCSF in the tweet was not referring to the school, but this is not stated. There is no hint what the tweet was actually about. But most relevantly, there seems to be no connection with "Q" only to "Qanon supporters". Is this one example too many? Could the paragraph be just deleted? 4shires (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2020

"Q has has falsely accused" is biased and incorrect. Change to "accused". "Donald Trump feigned collusion with Russia and worked with Mueller"is absolutely incorrect. The ENTIRE history section including Origins, Background, and False claims is biased in its nature and factually incorrect. Analysis and Appeal and Disillusionment sections are propagandizing Wikipedia's take on a subject that should be described and explained in a neutral and objective manner. Instead, the authors take great care to color their interpretation of events in hindsight in order to sway potential readers of the misleading nature of the Qanon movement. This is paramount because of the fact the wikipedia entry is highlighted as if it were an ad on the bottom of all Q related Youtube videos. Unless this is changed, Wikipedia will be outed as propaganda by other more vigilant social media users than myself. Qtronicus (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

change far right to heavily liberaterian ABruhRandomUser (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done QAnon fans would be pretty happy if Trump was an autocrat. Some of the ones who are more fond of misinterpreting the Bible as hard as possible actually want him to be the next Cyrus the Great, some even knowing full well that Isaiah called Cyrus a (lowercase) messiah. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The "Eduardo Moreno Derails Train" section

Although the incident has all the earmarks of a QAnon follower, are there any sources that actually mention QAnon in connection with Moreno or the incident? All I could find was Gizmodo saying "(However, one could reasonably hazard a guess that it involves QAnon.)", which doesn't seem sufficient to include it in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point. Although I recall seeing speculation about his ties to QAnon at the time, I don't think we ever got a statement directly tying him to the group. It should probably be removed until a source is found. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Vaccines

There's some debate over whether or not this article should be included in Category:Vaccine hesitancy. It was added by Rushwrj13 with the summary Considering 100% of the believers in this are also anti-vax, This belongs here. Do not revert this edit and say that there is "no evidence" for this. Look on any YouTube or Facebook comment section. This utterly fails WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR, even if I think it's correct. It was removed by Schazjmd and then restored by Beyond_My_Ken.

While I do assume that the article would be included in that category if this article was in an ideal state of completion, the article currently does not mention vaccines in any way. So, while Rushwrj13 abd BMK may be right overall, Schazjmd is right on policy. That said, the simple remedy would be to summarize and cite a source about how they're scared of a Coronavirus vaccine and have said they wouldn't take it. I vaguely recall seeing such a source floating about before I got my morning caffeine but I have to go to work so I can't re-find and add it right now -- I just know that it should exist. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

Suggest editing the "100% of qanon followers are anti-vax comment, we aren't all anti-vax, polio etc. Influenza on the other hand considering its a new strain each season seems useless getting a vax for last years strain. 2600:1000:B120:C140:4135:CAD4:3BC3:AFA0 (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 03:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

They are apparently asking for this edit summary] to be redacted, something that can't be done by ordinary editors. I don't think it qualifies for WP:Rev-del either, but thats's an admin question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

As an admin, I'm gonna say hell naw to a revdel. QAnon followers are even more wrong than the general antivax crowd (which is in no way support for their insanity, either). Ian.thomson (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

+ an inanely high number. O3000 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How can i change the "conspiracy theory" part?

This is absurd. Somebody needs to change this. We are a movement and a theory can be disproven with evidence and we have evidence. This is bias. River Garza (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done You would need reliable sources which say there is even an iota of validity to any of this. You're welcome to present those reliable sources here. As a new user, you may wish to review Wikipedia's foundational principles, notably the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guidelines. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia has a de facto mainstream bias, because Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Reliable sources describe QAnon as a conspiracy theory for various reasons, and Wikipedia must reflect that. Reliable (and independent) sources to the contrary would be necessary for any change to be made. We are not interested in sources proving or disproving the conspiracy itself, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research. We are interested in how sources describe QAnon specifically. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Plot by or against "deep state"?

Hello,

The first paragraph states that QAnon details "a supposed secret plot by an alleged deep state against U.S. President Donald Trump and his supporters".

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't it the other way around? From what I can gather, QAnon followers believe in an all-powerful, Satan-worshipping, global deep state engaged in international child trafficking, and that President Trump is working to bring their crimes to an end. I can imagine that some adherents also believe in a secret plot against POTUS, but surely that cannot qualify as the crux of the theory (and mind you, this definition makes up line 1 and 2 of the entire article).

Wouldn't it be more accurate to define the core QAnon belief as "a supposed secret plot by U.S. President Donald Trump against an alleged deep state"? Edelsheim (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This might be a subtle point, but the deep state plot is supposed to be the secret one. Trump's brave counter-attack is public. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020

'Far-Right' needs to be changed to 'Right Wing' in the initial paragraph as it more closely associated to the Republican side of the spectrum and against the socialism ideology., The use of the 'Far-Right' terminology is derogatory as it is associated to hate groups which QAnon is not. The research done by the group is open source and publicly available. DavidBTripp (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not original research. In other words, it is up to reliable sources to decide these things, not individual editors attempting to interpret 8chan posts. Since reliable sources say QAnon is far right, so will Wikipedia. That the far-right is often associated with hate groups doesn't, necessarily, mean that all far-right groups are hate groups. It also doesn't mean that QAnon is a hate group, nor does it mean that QAnon isn't a hate group. It means what it means. Grayfell (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory is a bad term...

The term "Conspiracy Theory" is really a bad term. A "Theory" in science, at least must have observational or experimental evidence. I really prefer the term "Conspiracy Fantasy" where that's not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfoxmich (talk • contribs) 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

What part of the buffalo do we get the wings from? Conspiracy theory is a joint word, it is not merely a theory about a conspiracy. That said, I'd be happier if we just referred to it as "delusional moonbatshit." Ian.thomson (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Works for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The Germans solve this by combining the words: verschwörungstheorie. But, delusional moonbatshit is easier to pronounce. O3000 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, WP:BOLLOCKS covers this I think Guy (help!) 14:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a colloquialism. Trying to change it now is like closing the barn doors after the cattle have already run away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's about the difference between the meaning of "theory" in science, and the meaning of "theory" in everyday English, which is why you get people going around saying that evolution by natural selection is "just a theory", and thinking that they've successfully debunked it by doing so. And BTW, Rfoxmich, believers in conspiracy theories cite a lot of "evidence" to support them, it's just the "evidence" is false, or wrongly construed, or misunderstood, or unproven, or disproved, or correlation but not causation, or otherwise not dispositive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't you mean that it's like shutting the barn door after you've taught the man to fish? Acroterion (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this is off-topic here. We can discuss whether the term "conspiracy theory" has been applied to this subject by sufficient reliable sources to justify our use of the term in the article but discussion of the term itself is not relevant to improving this article. Even on talk page of the conspiracy theory article it would fall foul of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOTFORUM and hence get short shrift. Essentially, this is the accepted name given to such nonsense and there is no point in arguing with the dictionary even if some of us might dislike the coinage of the term. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Add the site in External links

qmap.pub I mean this is just crazy not to have it here. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:4CBF:92CD:9B88:F7AB (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done "This is just crazy" is not a valid reason for inclusion. Please elaborate beyond your personal opinion. See also WP:BURDEN. Edelsheim (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

COI WP:ER

Several reliable sources have weighed in on my, and others', contention that QAnon's identity is likely to be known by Jim Watkins, 8chan's owner, or his son Ron Watkins, 8chan's administrator. More weight should be given to our theory about QAnon's identity.

• Farley, Donovan (2020-05-17). "The True Threat". Playboy. Retrieved 2020-06-01.

“The most important change in mind-set was that I came to believe Jim and Ron do not operate 8chan in good faith but rather to twisted ends,” he says. “Their actions continue to betray them—for example, helping QAnon post and making sure QAnon’s identity would remain stable during the transition from 8chan to 8kun, which they did for no one else.” Ron Watkins, whose father is suing Brennan for libel over remarks he tweeted last year, addressed these claims via Twitter DM: “Fred is currently fighting a criminal libel case, so I can’t recommend him as a good source of information.” Pressed about possible connections to Q, Ron said, “Nobody from our team has had private contact with Q.”

Also I believe relevant in this source:

When Jim was called before Congress after the El Paso shooting (he wore a QAnon pin affixed to his collar)

• LaFrance, Adrienne (2020-06-01). "The Prophecies of Q". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2020-06-01.

Watkins Xerxes, he frequently sings hymns, reads verses from the Bible, praises Trump, and touches on themes underlying QAnon—warning against the deep state and reminding his audience members that they are now “the actual reporting mechanism of the news.” He also shows off his fountain-pen collection and practices yoga. When he arrived on Capitol Hill, in September 2019, Watkins wore a bulbous silver Q pinned to his collar. His testimony was behind closed doors. In November, 8chan flickered back to life as 8kun. It was sporadically accessible, limping along through a series of cyberattacks. It received assistance from a Russian hosting service that is typically associated with spreading malware. When Q reappeared on 8kun, he used the same tripcode that he had used on 8chan. He posted other hints meant to verify the continuity of his identity, including an image of a notebook and a pen that had appeared in earlier posts.

Fredrick Brennan’s theory is that Jim and his son Ron, who is the site’s administrator, knew 8kun needed Q to attract users. “I definitely, definitely, 100 percent believe that Q either knows Jim or Ron Watkins, or was hired by Jim or Ron Watkins,” Brennan told me. Jim and Ron have both denied knowing Q’s identity. “I don’t know who Q is,” Ron told me in a direct message on Twitter.

I'm not the only subject matter expert to believe this:

• Levinson, Charles (2020-03-03). "With super PAC, QAnon's con chases mainstream — and money". Protocol. Retrieved 2020-06-01.

For seasoned QAnon watchers, perhaps the biggest significance behind the unveiling of the PAC is that it seems to cement the connection between Watkins, 8Chan's owner, and the Q poster himself. It's been one of the most hotly discussed and debated questions within the world of Q researchers, Q watchers and Q debunkers.

"Watkins always made it seem like there was distance between him and Q, that Q was just this guy posting on his forums, that he let Q post because he's a free speech absolutist. By launching this PAC he is fully admitting that he is working with whoever is posting as Q and he is now part of the grift that is QAnon," said Mike Rains, a QAnon researcher who is behind the Poker and Politics Twitter feed, which follows the Qanon movement and debunks many of its claims.

• Gilbert, David (2020-03-02). "QAnon Now Has Its Very Own Super PAC". Vice. Retrieved 2020-06-01.

When 8chan went offline last August due to hosting providers pulling support for the site, QAnon supporters were cut adrift. However, when 8chan reemerged in November — renamed 8kun — “Q” quickly reappeared, which led some to question how closely linked Watkins was to the conspiracy theory.

Given the strength of the sources, this theory ought to receive at least two sentences in the identity section.

I'd write it like this:

As QAnon relies on a tripcode to verify themselves, and the tripcode is verified by 8chan's server and not reproducible on other imageboards, QAnon was not able to post when the website went down following the El Paso shooting. This apparent conflict of interest, combined with statements by 8chan's founder Fredrick Brennan, Jim Watkins' use of a "Q" collar pin, and Watkins' financial interest in a QAnon super PAC have led to widespread speculation that either Jim Watkins or his son, 8chan's administrator Ron Watkins, knows the identity of QAnon; though they deny this.

References

Perhaps GRuban is interested in taking a swing at it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not touching this with a ten foot pole. I hereby disclaim all and any knowledge of anything QAnon, and will work hard to scrub my brain of what little I have just learned. The levels of rumor and conspiracy in the suggestions here are just too deeply nested for my humble brain to comprehend. ("They're just rumors!" "But they're rumors published in reliable sources!" "We can't publish rumors about living people!" "But the whole article is about rumors about living people, just like this!") I'll be sitting back and watching the fireworks while sipping Mai Tais with the Grey Aliens and the clone of Elvis. (Mai Tai's are a key part of the clone of Elvis's new diet.) --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say no on this. The proposed wording is WP:SYNTH, and the sources are entirely speculation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: The problem with this argument is that I'm not proposing a new section. We already have a § Identity of "Q"...which literally begins with there has been much speculation regarding the motive and the identity of the poster, and then lists the "range" of the theories. So, here's another theory. I don't understand why my pet speculative theory has less legitimacy being in the article than Wu Ming's or the idea that it's similar to Cicada 3301? I actually am going to see if Mr. Rothschild will consider adding it to the Daily Dot source, (we follow each other on Twitter, and I've also written for Layer 8,) as the source does state Editor’s note: This article is regularly updated for relevance. and much has changed since it was first published in 2018, as the Watkins hijack theory only makes sense post-8kun rebrand. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Sorry to double post, one more comment. Regarding WP:SYNTH, I was only attempting brevity. I'm happy to write it a different way, or cut out some sources and stick to three major ones, that is to say, Glaser (2019), LaFrance (2020) and Levinson (2020). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Attempt №2

Rothschild told me they'd see if their editor was interested. In the mean time...:

As QAnon relies on a tripcode to verify themselves, and the tripcode is verified by 8chan's server and not reproducible on other imageboards, QAnon was not able to post when the website went down following the El Paso shooting. This apparent conflict of interest, combined with statements by 8chan's founder Fredrick Brennan, Jim Watkins' use of a "Q" collar pin, and Watkins' financial interest in a QAnon super PAC which advertises on 8chan have led to widespread speculation that either Watkins or his son, 8chan's administrator Ron Watkins, knows the identity of QAnon. Both deny knowing "Q"'s identity.

References

@HandThatFeeds: Thoughts? I've cleaned up the WP:SYNTH and stuck to the major sources. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Solid work! I see no further issues beyond what's already been fixed. Re: sources being well-sourced speculation, that's what § Identity of "Q" heavily relies on in the first place. Edelsheim (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Edelsheim: Thank you! I have three small suggestions to clarify the section so our mention of 4chan makes sense: (a) (suggested words in bold) Because 4chan is anonymous and does not allow registration by users, any number of individuals originally may have posted using the same handle. (b) The poster came to use a frequently changing tripcode to authenticate him- or herself on 8chan after migrating there as they feared 4chan had been "infiltrated". (c) Wikilink El Paso shooting. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

References

@Psiĥedelisto: My pleasure! Looks good to me, Y done Edelsheim (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

This info is incorrect and inaccurate. Comes across as far left propaganda trying to discredit a legit movement. 2601:280:4700:1277:F144:C5C5:5D8A:67E (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Add information that Donald J Trump is Q+

Really, no information?? 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:B131:DF:A9A7:7AD6 (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Got a WP:reliable source that says so? No? Then no information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course I have. Crazy amount of those https://www.google.com/search?q=q%2B+is+trump&source=lnms&tbm=nws Even from you favourite New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/us/oregon-senate-perkins-qanon.html 94.29.3.116 (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There are indeed reliable sources such as that NYT article that say some QAnon supporters believe that Trump has been posting online as Q+. This can be covered somewhere in the article, perhaps under "False claims and beliefs" or "Identity of "Q""? Of course, those reliable sources also say this conspiracy theory is "baseless" and "delusional", and we should make that clear as well. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

QAnon churches

There is now a network of independent churches who use QAnon as their lens for interpreting the Bible[21]. This seems worth mentioning, especially since the group’s spiritual advisor is the same guy the film The Trump Prophecy was made about. 97.116.88.75 (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from this opinion piece, only one such actually church is mentioned. I take seriously the concept that QAnon essentially serves a quasi-religious purpose to many people, since people's attachment to it cannot be explained as rational or logical, but we need more than this to expand the article in that direction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There may be more sources. I noticed a piece from The American Conservative that provides some of its own analysis while quoting heavily from this piece from The Conversation. The latter work is written by a PhD student studying extremist religious-political organizations. I wasn't specifically looking for this, so there may be more on this topic. Jlevi (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Same author. Jlevi (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Qanon is a factual movement and opposition force against the globalist takeover of the world. 69.132.218.109 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done:Do you have a specific change you are proposing? Do you have reliable sources that back up this proposed change? If the desired change is not spelled out and a source is not provided for justification, then it is not possible to make a modification. Jlevi (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Remove conspiracy theorie from the title-proof-> MILITARY INTELLIGENCE TEAM MILITARY INTELLIGENCE BATTALION (STRATEGIC SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE) MIL INTELL BRIGADE DESIGNATION _ MI BRIGADE (STRAT SIGINT) 32536AA00: _ MI TM (UTAH)(STRAT SIGINT) 32536AB00: _ MI TM (OCMC)(STRAT SIGINT) 32536AC00: _ MI TM (DET A)(STRAT SIGINT) Q

Abvously know one has read the beginning, fact check your sources please. 75.108.242.56 (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

No French please!

It is most annoying when a writer is trying to make a point and they use a FRENCH word while trying to communicate in English. Please, please, please keep your French to yourself and let us know what you are TRYING to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.67.206 (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Which French word? Please be specific. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

My guess would be coup d'état. Perhaps we should use coup… no wait, that is still from the French. Maybe it was some other English term borrowed from French or via another language. Here is another List of English words of French origin. StrayBolt (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"Speak in French when you can’t think of the English for a thing." -- Lewis Carroll. O3000 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not know what "je ne sais quoi" means. Jonathunder (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

StrayBolt, you can't trust the French. They don't even have a word for entrepreneur. Guy (help!) 09:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Guy,you are a very naughty boy! Hilarious, but VERY naughty... FillsHerTease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)