Talk:QAnon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Seeking consensus on "illusory pattern perception" line in the lead

The line "Psychologists attribute finding a conspiracy where there is none to a condition called illusory pattern perception" was, at some point, boldly edited into this article.

I contended that this line is irrelevant in this article about a particular conspiracy theory and would be more appropriate in the general conspiracy theory article. As such I reverted it.

Instead of discussing per WP:BRD guidelines, user Beyond_My_Ken has unfortunately performed multiple reverts in order to keep this information in the article. Respectfully, I would suggest that we seek consensus here per the recommended guidelines. As such, I am taking it upon myself to seek consensus on this issue here. Thank you.

His argument (given in the edit description) was, "If it applies to comspiracy theories, then it applies to QAnon, and would be appropriate in any article abut a consoiracy theory." By this logic, we would include this line in literally every article about every single conspiracy theory. Respectfully, I'd posit that this just doesn't make sense and isn't the way encyclopedias work. Let's discuss.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The material in question is:

Psychologists attribute finding a conspiracy where there is none to a condition called illusory pattern perception.

References

My thinking is this: if the material is relevant to QAnon -- and it certainly seems to be -- than it is immaterial if it is also relevant to articles about other conspiracy theories. Whether it is included in those article is a question to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Certainly, we do not issue bans on the includion on generally-appropriate information simply because the information is also relevant on other articles. In actuality, many, many facts are shared between articles that are related in some way.

It appears to me that these removals are simply a way of stripping the article of information that the deleting editor doesn;t wish to be seen by the reader of this article, for whatever reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It simply does not make sense to include this information in this article, especially since there are no reputable sources that directly talk about the phenomenon, such as it is, in relation to this particular conspiracy theory. Even if there were, it would be dubious to include it here. Your bad-faith accusations about my motivations are incorrect. My motivations are exactly what I've stated: I believe this line to be largely irrelevant fluff, a random factoid about conspiracy theories which doesn't make any sense to plop into the lead (or really, anywhere other section) of the article.

Further regarding your outrageous accusation regarding my motivations: I would respectfully ask that you behave in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith. I've spent some time thinking about it, and concluded that your accusation cannot be construed as anything other than you directly assuming bad faith on my part. In addition to being flatly incorrect, it is insulting, uncivil, and - to speak plainly - unnecessary. Please correct your poor behavior and do not repeat it. I'm relatively new to being active on Wikipedia and don't edit all that often, so I've taken the time to read through the article on Civility. It suggests that I ask you to "strike-through an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally." So, I'd ask you to do that, and I would appreciate an apology. Thank you.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven't yet thought carefully about this, and I'll try to bring a fuller impression later. One immediate thing that jumps out at me, however, is that these two popular articles are referencing the same paper, which is neither particularly highly cited nor in a particularly fancy journal (I think--not too familiar with impact factors in psychology). If other papers point out something similar (or even better a review article), then this might be more important a detail. As it stands, I am leaning against inclusion in the lead, though it might have a place in the body. Again, this is not a particularly thought-out reflection. Pretty interesting, though! Jlevi (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree that it should be in te body, and not in the lede. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I had to edit the paragraph earlier to remove an unsupported claim that the phenomenon was a mental illness. It's a bit jarring in its current place; If anyone wants to move it from the lede, or even remove the paragraph entirely, that's fine with me. -- The Anome (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've checked both sources, and the original paper they reference, and none of them seem to mention QAnon anywhere. Making the association between this and QAnon is thus original research (regardless of whether it is actually true), and the paragraph needs to be deleted, and not reinstated, per the notice at the top of this talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... I had that impression of WP:SYNTH even without checking it. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. A basketball is a ball. We have a source that says that balls are spherical objects, but mentions baseballs, soccer balls, tennis balls, and croquet balls, and mentions footballs as an unusual outlier to the general description, but doesn't mention basketballs. My position is that we can use the source to say that basketballs are spherical. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but the position you describing is directly at odds with WP:SYNTH and therefore Wikipedia's overall guidelines and rules. WP:SYNTH verbatim states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The word "explicitly" is important here. Without these guidelines we are no longer building an encyclopedia based on facts and reputable sources; instead, we would essentially be writing a blog.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:SYNTH is the guiding rule here, and none of the sources mention QAnon. -- The Anome (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What statement is being made in the material in question which is not being explicitly stated by the sources? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Its more statements about generalities being applied to a specific. Your balls example demonstrates the problem with using sources in such a way -- it would be incorrect to use your ball source to say that lawnbowls balls either are spherical (they are slightly oblate) and including its use would open the door to someone insisting they're not really balls. For example, if some true believer found a source that explicitly ties belief in QAnon to some other factor (such as malignant narcissistic disorder, frontotemporal dementia, and tiny hands), they could argue that QAnon isn't a conspiracy theory. That would be a case of arguing the card says "MOOPS" but it's simple enough to prevent that by waiting until we have the card that says MOORS (or rather, QAnon). In the mean time, we can double down on material pointing out specifically QAnon as insane, add your material to the conspiracy theory article while doubling down on emphasis here that QAnon is a conspiracy theory, and maybe do a fork from Conspiracy_theory#Psychological_interpretations to Psychology of conspiracy theories and throw a Further template for that at the top of the Analysis section (or just {{further|Conspiracy theory#Psychological interpretations}} to the Analysis section if nobody has the time for an article). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is an obviously inappropriate line akin to editorial POV-pushing. True or not, related to the article or not, using one's own, editorial justification as to why this random piece of information is included in an article when the sources themselves do not make any link to said article is not only textbook SYNTH, but textbook editorialization. The original author went even farther and included the additional OR editorializaiton that it is a "mental illness", something the sources do not even say. This seems a rather bald-faced attempt to push an editorial POV linking those who believe in this conspiracy with mental illness. While perhaps a sympathetic position to many, and while perhaps not a contentious statement in most venues, and I may even agree with you in a different place, doing so in a Wikipedia article without the backing of sources is absolutely unacceptable and a fairly serious misstep. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure, User:Swarm. Also inappropriate, however, and past the level of fishiness, an editor seeking this level of escalation, including to ANI. One might note that the editor has adopted one of BMK's habits, of bolding for emphasis in talk and project page posts. Very irritating already in the original, and even more so in the copycat. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't understand what you believe is "fishy" about it. I read the relevant Civility page and I tried to follow the correct procedure detailed in it. I'm told that I made a mistake and should have just walked away instead of escalating to ANI. That's fine, I'll try to have a better gauge for this stuff in the future. With that said, I'm not copying anyone, I arrived at this style of emphasis all on my own. People have been using bold for emphasis for a long time all over the Internet. In any event I wish you'd stop calling me a copycat - the implication seems to be that I'm purposefully copying him (why?), and it's just not the case. With that said, if this style of emphasis is widely frowned upon in Wikipedia, I'd be happy to stop using it, though I'd first like to understand why it's considered harmful.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
      • My point was that it looked like you were copying BMK's editing habits, as a kind of hounding. Using bold isn't harmful, hounding is. That's all. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Oh. Okay. understood. I promise I wasn't doing that. I'd say that sounds like a bizarrely petty thing that nobody would do, but unfortunately I'd bet that this type of thing happens all the time.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Repetition between citations and further reading

I notice that a the following references are present in both citations and the further reading section:

• "What Is QAnon: Explaining the Internet Conspiracy Theory That Showed Up at a Trump Rally"
• "The Prophecies of Q"

Is there any particular reason for this? Are they really good introductions? By WP:ELNO #1, already cited items should generally not be linked out. However, I think there is an exception in this case due to the huge number of references; highlighting the best seems reasonable. Jlevi (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed them. "Further reading" should be for items not used as references in writing the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A mess of details

Right now, there is an incredible amount of detailed content on this page. I think the fact that a lot of these details have been pushed into a 'reactions' and 'incidents' section at the bottom demonstrates that it is unclear how to appropriately integrate this material.

A possible solution? Don't integrate it here! In order to better re-orient this page to better answer the five Ws, rather than to just serve as a catalogue of Q-related events, I suggest moving some of this material to a list or two.

Some options for suitable lists include the following:

- List of QAnon political candidates. Reasonable selection criteria might include winning a primary or appearing on a ballot. Examples of this kind of collection appearing in sources are: [1][2][3]

- List of perspectives on Qanon. The 'Reactions' section of the page seems rather odd. It seems like we could better accommodate the information in this section by making a list of cases in which secondary sources have highlighted particular perspectives, and then linking out to that list from the 'Analysis' section in this article.

- Finally, List of Qanon-related stuff. I think there is probably a good argument for moving a lot of the overly detailed bits and pieces out of this article quickly rather than carefully. Given that this is an extremely high-visibility article, it might be worth making a page that works well enough for now, and then handling the exact details of that page later.

I think that much of this material is valuable, but that it distracts from the page, and I hope to find a more useful home for it.

Is my diagnosis correct about the article as it stands? Would any specific lists make sense? Would a general list be a good option for now?

Jlevi (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hoax?

I notice that the article is in several "hoax" categories. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Isn't a hoax a thing that someone at the center knows is essentially untrue? So we really know that about QAnon? Isn't it just as possible that the central figures behind its creation and initial dissemination actually believed what they were saying was true? I guess what I'm saying is that although we know that it's a conspiracy theory, because of the total lack of evidence and the generally screwiness of it all, we can't really know that it's a hoax until the riddle is solved and the genesis of QAnon is revealed, if it ever is.

Thoughts about whether the categories are appropriate or not?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it's really not believable that the original Q thought it was true. They're claiming to be inside the Trump administration while "leaking" information that... proved to be completely false. And not just false, but completely out of touch with reality. The individual is either delusional or trolling, which makes it a hoax. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The categories are appropriate. It is an obvious hoax made up of obvious hoaxes. Q has said many things that are manifest hoaxes, such as that Hillary Clinton was about to be arrested...in 2017. This is drop №1 actually. This is just one example, almost everything they say is untrue or a hoax, and such can be determined in minutes via reliable sources. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The arguments for the hoax label seem totally fair. However, it always gets tricky when we as editors find ourselves having to logic our way through labels. Do any reliable sources prominently describe QAnon as a hoax? This would be a much simpler argument to make, I think. Jlevi (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead: alleged, supposed

I noticed some back-and-forth on edits to the lead sentence, and wondered if this compromise sentence would help? QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory that alleges a secret plot by a "deep state" against...? If we promote "alleged" (adjective) to "alleges" (verb) and retire "detailing", I think it gives a clearer lead while still establishing the fanciful paranoia of the org. And a "deep state" (as opposed to the "deep state") seems to establish it isn't a real thing. Schazjmd (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"Deep state" is an actual term, it's just that there's been a conspiracy theory about a specific Deep State in the USA for longer than QAnon has been around. They just latched onto the existing Deep State conspiracy theory. So it's more appropriate to call it "the" Deep State, as it's referencing this specific conspiracy theory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is this article using far left news sources for its descriptions of the group?

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

---

Using Washington Post as a source to describe QAnon is like using Fox News as a source to describe the DNC. Beyond strange that the quotes in the lead are from hard left publications such as New York Times (who were just caught trying to dox a conservative news anchor), ThinkProgress (which was a radical progressive outlet), and BuzzFeed News (who peddled a false anti-Trump dossier for years).

I know Wikipedia is a hard left platform, but you can at least pretend to stay balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.63.90 (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think the balance of opinions about QAnon in this article is wrong then find a reliable source that describes it differently. There's a long list of reliable sources here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Fox News is on the list of reliable sources - surely they've said something about QAnon? --Shimbo (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2020 (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.

Can someone please add a section about the clearance information being false

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

---

Im surprised this hasnt been posted yet, but its obvious that Q does not have a clearance due to his complete lack of knowledge about clearances.

He claims to have a Q clearance, which his name comes from. But this is a nuclear clearance, not a political clearance, and he would not have access to any political information.

This alone shows that he has no knowledge of clearances and no access to classified information. In fact, he did not even bother to google it.

Q clearance

This is definitive proof that he is a fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B140:41F5:90F:34BC:E0DF:D6E8 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable independent published source that discusses that aspect of QAnon? We're not investigative journalists, piecing together bits of evidence. We sumamrize information that is published in reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't have to be an investigative journalist to post already proven information. If you click the link you can see more about Q clearance. Its a nuclear clearance, not a political clearance. The article already states that he takes his name from claiming he has a Q clearance, but this is a nuclear clearance. This should be at the top in the summary, as its the main thing he identifies himself by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B114:9D26:A522:BE28:B8D8:809D (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "political clearance". Q and L clearancies of DoE (Department of Energy) give access when you have a "need to know" to all classified information, not only to Critical Nuclear Weapon Design Information (TS//RD-CNWDI, remember when nuclear submarines bleuprints leaked). That includes SI-G (Special Intelligence - GAMMA), ECI of NSA, geospatial intelligence (KLONDIKE) and space-based IMINT (Imagery intelligence), SIGINT (Signals intelligence), and MASINT (Measurement and signature intelligence), also HUMINT Control System (HCS, HCS-O, HCS-P, in some cases even HCS-O-P)... The only thing that is problematic to get is RESERVE (RSV), that is National Reconnaissance Office. You know, aliens, UFO and stuff. 2A00:1370:812C:C538:69FE:7932:D193:648D (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2020 (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.

NPOV

When I encountered this article, I see many contentious words such as “false” and “falsely”. I think this violates WP:NPOV. A reader should already know it is a conspiracy theory so using those words only adds bias. I propose removal of these words. Manabimasu (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Uh, no. It doesn't. It's not at all biased to call QAnon beliefs false. No reliable source backs them up. Every reliable source calls them false. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: If the words “false” and “falsely” were changed to “fringe” would that be acceptable unless the source uses those adjectives. The word claim, allegation, or belief alone without the adjective should be fine on its own. Manabimasu (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Manabimasu: Uh, no, it is not acceptable to change "false" to "fringe" in this instance. A fringe belief may very well be true, although it's unlikely to ever be found so. Einstein's theory of relativity was once a fringe belief, but is now mainstream science. A false belief will never be proven true. Belief in "Q" is a patently false belief, not a fringe belief. Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Manabimasu: Would you say that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is:
  -Debunked
  -Unproven
  -Debatable
  -Plausible
  -Proven?

QAnon is pretty much an elaboration of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Let's stick with "false" which has the advantage of being straightforward and accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: I obviously agree, but fringe SPAs at this and the Pizzagate CT article usually object to the Pizzagate CT article's phrasing "debunked." I've also been trying to merely ask WP:CPPers the question without argument that might influence their answer (see User_talk:Qtronicus for an example), as anyone who picks any of the choices I gave besides "debunked" (although new answers like "false" or "batshit" would also be good) generally needs a nothere CIR block. That said, it appears OP has wandered off. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks, I was unaware. ill know for the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

When, and via what investigative body, was any of the child trafficking allegations proven false? News reporters nervously laughing something off does not debunk the allegations. A few celebrities denying wrongdoing does not debunk the allegations. Without a formal, thorough, and complete investigation, who's to say the allegations are false? The news surround Epstein and Maxwell sure makes it look questionable. If someone within wikipedia has knowledge specifically related to the truth, or lack there of, regarding these claims, they need to come forward to the FBI, not just deny some claim on this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalepmay (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Dalepmay, that's the beauty of a conspiracy theory and how it self-perpetuates. A gunman stormed the Comet pizzeria expecting a child sex ring in the basement and came up empty, but that's enough proof for Q supporters. There is no evidence at all that supports any of this, and yet you're looking for proof that it's false. Epstein and Maxwell have nothing to do with the QAnon theory, though it sure is interesting that Q supporters think Trump is here to break up a child sex ring, and yet he wished Maxwell well yesterday. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Dalepmay, it has been investigated. No one has provided a shred of evidence that Hillary Clinton is involved in a global pedophile ring. In fact, if anything, the Epstien evidence would implicate Donald Trump, but QAnon believers quickly dismiss that possibility and pivot right back to the Democrats. And one of the nutjobs who believes this stuff went into Comet Ping Pong with a rifle to investigate the basement which... doesn't exist. This entire concept is 10 pounds of bullshit in a 5 pound container. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeking a consensus on phrasing in second paragraph

Reading the article, perhaps the unqualified “falsely accused” is a little strong?

I say this with the purest of intentions: we don’t know whether these accusations are true. Common sense says they are false. They are almost certainly false; however we don’t know that for certain without a trial.

I propose the addition of a qualifying word, such as “presumably”, or a rephrasing. AndrewKkh (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the central tenets of QAnon is that the accusations of cannibalism and child slaves can't be disproven. The watering-down that you propose is inconsistent with mainstream media accounts of QAnon as baseless nonsense. Wikipedia isn't a congenial home for favorable accounts of undisprovable criminal accusations. Acroterion (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2020

Head of NYPD union gives Fox News interview with QAnon mug in background Head of NYPD union gives Fox News interview with QAnon mug in background Marshall Cohen By Marshall Cohen, CNN Talkingtoyouman (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

•  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.

Not surprising. Also, not WP:DUE for an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

QAnon

This Wiki article is extremely biased... CJ WiKi 108 02:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ WiKi 108 (talk • contribs)

 Not done - Please explain specifically what you object to, and provide reliable sources which support your proposed changes. Otherwise, this thread will be closed as non-actionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The provision of "obvious source material" being required is ridiculous - and that is not an emotional response but a calm observation of the issue. Qanon is not only a substantially demonstrative platform for Trump followers who elected him because he promised to expose the swamp - also known as the deep state - but it is also a platform for those who are not Trump supporters to uncover and learn of what as become a clear, demonstrative undermining of individual liberties and the rule of law.

For Wikipedia to state that there is no proof of a conspiracy is nothing more than confirmation bias. What do you think that has been going on in the Federal Court system over the past several years that would never have been uncovered if it were not for Judicial Watch lawsuits? Anyone in possession of their faculties can see that there has been a conspiracy by a group of people operating in secret to deny US citizens of their individual liberties. Hiding Bengazi, Clinton eMail servers, the MSM Bias to destroy the Trump presidency, obvious criminal set ups by the FBI, one of which is the recent charges against General Flynn, and more. Thank God I did not support WikiPedia when they were asking for money. You can bet that I will lobby heavily against anyone to support them in the future.

One other thing I'd like to mention. WikiPedia has NEVER been considered a valid or reliable source of information. That reason alone is enough to remove it from Youtube - another entity that is censoring free speech. WikiPedia is, has been observed, a very biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:98A0:E870:911D:E1C1:FA97:78B8 (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A lack of evidence is not proof that evidence is being censored. It just means you're making stuff up. M.Clay1 (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This article says Q has "falsely" accused hollywood actors, politicians, etc of being part of an international child sex trafficking operation. No evidence is cited proving that these claims are false. I don't believe any investigation has been done regarding all of these claims, to say whether or not these claims are false. With the public knowledge surrounding Epstein and Maxwell, I feel this claim at least deserves to be reported neutrally, as opposed to saying it is a false claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalepmay (talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Dalepmay, no evidence suggests that it is true. You're looking at this the wrong way. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Things have not been proven false or true, so therefore Wikipedia editors should not be passing judgement. "Unproven" is a better word than "Falsely" 2600:1700:2196:2A60:6168:D392:DE34:39DD (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No, you're just disconnected from reality. QAnon started with the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, when a bunch of Neo-Nazis sharing pornographic images of underage anime girls decided to claim that a pizza parlor that didn't have a basement was hiding children in the basement. It has been false from the start. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

they are for trump not against him, this is miss information 82.11.10.78 (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Where does the article say they're against Trump? Schazjmd (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

IP seems to have misread the first sentence. Article seems fine to me. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This article isn't accurate or reflective of current views

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

---

What details do they agree about?

Generally they all believe that Donald Trump is fighting against a secretive and evil global cabal, members of which include former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the billionaire liberal philanthropist George Soros, TheDrOctagon (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Not quite. They totally agreed to stuff that later proved false, so they decided to ignore that and find new batshit.

Wikipedia doesn't use original research, it just summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This article uses many quotes and info, from Media Matters...They write and then pass out the talking points to news rooms and websites everyday. Go from channel and channel you’ll notice they speak the same words an descriptions verbatim. I’ve found Media Matters to be biased and untruthful. Because i’ve researched this subject and now post this - my comment will be deleted.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B021:4B8A:44FA:835D:3895:5C55 (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support They write and then pass out the talking points to news rooms and websites everyday. Go from channel and channel you’ll notice they speak the same words an descriptions verbatim or that MM is untruthful. soibangla (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2020 (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.

Post that didn't go at the bottom originally

"This apparent conflict of interest, combined with statements by 8chan's founder Fredrick Brennan, the use of a "Q" collar pin by 8chan owner Jim Watkins, and Watkins' financial interest in a QAnon super PAC which advertises on 8chan, have led to widespread speculation that either Watkins or his son, 8chan's administrator Ron Watkins, knows the identity of Q.[30][72] Both deny knowing "Q"'s identity.[30][73]" "Apparent", "widespread speculation" "Both deny" - This seems to exist merely as a writer's opinion based on observations. The opinion is denied, so why is this opinion here published? Both should be removed. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winklebean (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Winklebean: New stuff goes at the bottom. See those numbers at the end of the quote? Those are citations to reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

TOC limit causing odd issue

Hi! I'm trying to add a Table of Contents limit (Template:TOC limit). However, whenever I do, it causes the Background and Pizzagate sections to not display content correctly, and I have no idea why. Does anyone get why this is happening? I think it would be good to limit the ToC so the long list of 'Incidents' don't appear individually. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Guardian: QAnon Facebook groups are growing at a rapid pace around the world

I think it would be helpful to explain where conspiracy messages are spread as a section but also in the lede, this would include Facebook etc, there are a huge number of reliable sources explaining this, here is one just from today

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/11/qanon-facebook-groups-growing-conspiracy-theory

John Cummings (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Epstein & co?

I recently reverted an edit by CarlPhilippTrump.me because I didn't think the sourcing was strong enough for the lead. The claim was that the QAnon community spends a lot of time on Epstein, and the source says: "An active subsection of Q followers probes the Jeffrey Epstein case." Since this is the only sentence that touches on Epstein in the source, I reverted for due weight reasons.

However, the relationship between QAnon and the Epstein case seems potentially worth discussing based on sourcing that compares the two: [4][5].

Note, though, that this sourcing leaves unclear how exactly the Q community fits Epstein into their worldview. It seems like they don't really engage with it on its own terms, but rather just map Q beliefs onto it. Jlevi (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A mention in body, yes. In lead, nah. soibangla (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

This needs a header to state that it is an opinion piece. 154.115.159.122 (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You used the semi-protected edit request header instead. Wikipedia is not the place for you to express your opinions anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

This article, which holds the Google snippet, says QAnon is an anti-Trump conspiracy theory organization which is inaccurate. QAnon is pro-Trump. Please update "anti-Trump" to what the research shows, that it is pro-Trump. 70.105.242.100 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you’re confused regarding what the article says. Volunteer Marek 10:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The Google graph currently says QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory detailing a supposed secret plot by an alleged "deep state" against U.S. President Donald Trump and his supporters.. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

This is obviously biased. Sad to see you all going the way of Google, YouTube and Snopes. Just kidding - none of them started out unbiased. You did though. Bye bye. 173.175.98.165 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 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?) 14:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2020

Although Q'anon is a conspiracy theory, it is not a far-right conspiracy theory. It is very scary that only "established editors" can change this page. Did they go to colleges like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton? I have a journalism degree from Central Michigan University. Thank you. Funkmastafrank (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been debated ad nauseam here, with reasons given for why it is a "far-right conspiracy theory". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You only need to make ten edits to gain semi-protected access on Wikipedia, it's not run by some elite group who adhere to their own beliefs. Azaan Habib 19:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Bleach

One line in the "False claims and beliefs" section reads "QAnon theorists have touted drinking bleach (known as MMS, or Miracle Mineral Solution) as a "miracle cure" for COVID-19.". While chlorine dioxide, known in pseudoscience circles as MMS, is an industrial bleaching agent, the phrasing implies that they advocate drinking household hypochlorite bleach, which is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.92.57 (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree this is misleading amd.should be corrected. Cubix1990 (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The so-called MMS is an elaborate method of, yes, drinking chlorine dioxide or bleach, and they do advocate that. It stays. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead does not go far enough

I think a few more "false" and "disproven" need to be added to the lead section. It does not go far enough to state how truly discredited these theories are. Words such as "supposed" and "alleged" are simply not enough. We need more "falsely accused". Another example, it should be "Q also falsely claimed that Trump feigned collusion with Russians ... ". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added a new sentence to the lead section that hopefully helps to address this. Taquim (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Talk:QAnon

Given repeated attempts to re-open accusations of nuisance edits and left-wing media bias (must be all those Rethinking Marxism citations), I would like to open a discussion on whether Talk:QAnon merits semi-protected status. Johncdraper (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, this is not how pages get semi-protected. If you want it to be protected, make a request at WP:RFPP and an uninvolved admin will consider it. We are hesitant to protect talk pages, though, given that they are to be used for article improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu Thank your for your reply. I am a newbie to WP:RFPP. I would not want to make a request if it were not supported by one or more other editors, although I appreciate consensus may not be possible. So, if the main page editors were able to manage the volume of attempted restarts of closed discussions, I would not want to make a request that may be unnecessary. I simply note that there are repeated attempts to restart closed discussions and flag this. Flagging it seems to me better than reverting edits to Talk:QAnon. I respect the fact that you are right, including about protecting talk pages, but I would like to see some discussion on this to reassure me that I should not make the request. Johncdraper (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Does this article have an encyclopedic tone, or is it an emotional hit piece?

Article says, for example, Q: Its proponents have been called "a deranged conspiracy cult"[16] and "some of the Internet's most outré Trump fans".[37] /Q

Are those weasel words, "have been called", employed to make a degrading comment without overtly taking ownership of the statement? Outré??? Does that term give the article a comical tone? Is this intended to smear Trump? BTW, throwing out the expression "conspiracy theory" with the idea that this label spares the writer from a rational debunk, may also be a species of weasel words. I suggest a rational revision of the article, factually based, free of mud-slinging. For example, one might say that QAnon postulates a conspiracy between person A, B, C, etc. "Conspiracy theory" is now used to label some movement or person as a crackpot, when it is not necessarily crackpot to assert that a conspiracy exists (2 or more persons joined together to accomplish some evil goal). (PeacePeace (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC))

Those are not Wikipedia's words, those are words from various observers of the subject. Since all of QAnon's accusations are about alleged conspiracies, and since none of them have any substance to them (as all reliable sources confirm), "conspiracy theory" is the exactly right term to use. Our Neutral Point of View policy is not an intellectual suicide pact; it does not mean that we have to pretend that Flat Earthers, birthers, Holocaust denialists and QAnon are anything but what they are: idiots and nonsense-spreaders.--Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• @PeacePeace: Are you suggesting that QAnon might not be a debunked or a conspiracy theory? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

The 2nd sentence is not correct and should be removed: "No part of the theory has been shown to be based in fact.". Even though there is a reference, it is factually incorrect. Epstein was in Q theory before proven, and was correct. BeerisproofGodlovesU (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Epstein was not a conspiracy theory, everyone already knew he ran a pedophile gang and several Democrat politicians were involved, around ten years before this conspiracy theory was created. QAnon built on Epstein and claimed a large section of the deep state was involved with him, the conspiracy theory was not Epstein being a pedophile, but pedophiles, including Epstein, running the country. This of course is not true. Azaan Habib 11:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

The second sentence in the article, No part of the theory is based on fact", needs to be removed because it is both a supposition and is not supported by the quoted source, which is itself an opinion article, with no supportive evidence given. 66.128.245.149 (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement is supported by a reliable source (not in fact an opinion piece). Wikipedia reflects what sources say. If you have reliable (!) sources saying differently, feel free to present them here. Otherwise, this type of discussion won’t lead to anything no matter how often it is repeated. Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 15:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you just actually claim that CNN is a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

CNN is a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

100.12 has previously tried to argue that the Proud Boys aren't fascist, and so may be dismissed as a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It could be replaced with a sentence such as there is no evidence which points to the existence of the conspiracy theory since no part of the theory is based on fact sounds like an opinion piece (even if it isn't, it just sounds opinionated). Azaan Habib 11:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of how it sounds, it's accurate: nothing in the conspiracy theory has turned out to be factual. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Claims that QAnon is an attempt to discredit conspiracy theories?

I was talking to someone that subscribes to many current CTs (Covid-19 exaggerated for reasons of political control, and heading down the rabbit hole from there). Their claim was that QAnon is actually a deliberate attempt (by the "global elite", etc.) to discredit the "real" conspiracy theories. Anyone come across that, or got a cite? Worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

New sections go at the bottom. It'd need a source to establish that that reaction to it is noteworthy, but given the disinformation Russia put out for the 2016 United States elections, Covid-19, and their history of spreading Kennedy and UFO conspiracy theories it would not surprise me if the most prolific Q author was ultimately a Troll from Olgino. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"Collective delusion"

BuzzFeed News has decided that "conspiracy theory" is too simplistic to describe QAnon, so they're now going to refer to it as a "collective delusion" and/or "mass delusion". Unlikely other media outlets will go in that direction as well, but dropping the link here just in case. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Naming a Q figure

I removed the name of a person identified by Logically.ai as supposedly a key QAnon figure. This isn't a notable person, and this is a single source making the claim. I think before we put the name of a person in connection with a notorious movement, we should wait until it's widely reported by reliable sources. Readers can still click through to the source to read the details of their investigation. Schazjmd (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Gelinas

I don't think Gelinas belongs in § Identity of "Q". He's certainly an important part of this story, he owned the largest "Q drop" republishing website, but even Logically.ai said that this doesn't mean he's Q. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd and GorillaWarfare: Pinging for opinion. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 05:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto, is there a more appropriate location in the article where you think the information belongs? (I've removed the name again, per my reasoning above.) Schazjmd (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I think that the aggregator sites are notable and deserve a section explaining how they're different from 8chan. However, sources to write this are lackluster and we can't just have me write based on my extensive topic area knowledge. Perhaps Rothschild 2020 and Roose 2020 can help get us there, but I think we should wait for more sources. Roose 2020 in particular has issues in that it describes a tripcode as a "digital signature", the author seems to have confused a 4chan-style tripcode from 8chan's "secure tripcode" which proves nothing if site administrators are colluding. I know that several further sources are in the works right now as I've been giving quotes like crazy; given that this is a complicated technical topic getting editors and journalists to find synergy has been difficult, but I have some hope; a major publication date is the 18th, conveniently when I'll be re-activating my Twitter (most likely). I think this can wait until at least then, when I'm confident enough to show some sources about how the aggregators and 8chan differ, to add a section about this. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2020

The QAnon wasn't really a conspiracy theory group and was really an online trolling campaign directed by 4chan to get Donald Trump elected, in which they were successful in doing, may I suggest in correcting that? Failsafe Ziprar (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dylsss (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

New section for QAnon in the United Kingdom

Can I suggest new section is created for QAnon in the UK? It is becoming very popular but is quite different to the US in terms of who are 'believers' and also what they believe, it includes a lot more spiritual healing, Brexit, 5G causes COVID, 'paedophile hunters' here and not very much about Trump. I'm not sure quite how it would fit into the existing structure of the article which seems entirely US focused for obvious reasons. Here's some references:

• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/18/qanon-conspiracy-theory-gaining-ground-in-uk-analysis-shows
• https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/2020/08/28/the-uks-emerging-conspiracy-theory-street-movements/
• https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/y3z4jj/anti-lockdown-movement-conspiracy-theories-uk
• https://observer.com/2020/08/extreme-5g-conspiracy-theories-where-they-come-from-covid-19/
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/20/the-qanon-conspiracy
• https://www.npr.org/2020/10/08/921506695/conspiracy-theories-such-as-qanon-appear-to-gain-ground-in-britain

I really don't know the topic well but it seems important to include this information.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

propose changing opening from including "far-right conspiracy theory" to "complete and utter BS"

It might not be "encyclopedic" but it would be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.2.200 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

QAnon, From Fringe Conspiracy to Mainstream Politics

From the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a RS:

• QAnon, From Fringe Conspiracy to Mainstream Politics

Valjean (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

Just delete the whole damn thing. Biased garbage. 38.117.232.129 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC) — 38.117.232.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

do you mean WP:TNT? Regards --Devokewater (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You're right, it is biased in that we don't call QAnon the paranoid and fascist Mammon cultus that it is.

...Oh, were you complaining that we take the more moderate (but still realistic) approach in describing it as a collection of inconsistent (and rather ironic) conspiracy theories? That would indicate you shouldn't be editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

haha lol. Can't wait until conspiracy theory dies out. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done Please read WP:NONAZIS and WP:COI. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article got deleted, why not delete this too for some fun? I assume it's because the QAnon theory is much more absurd that the Cultural Marxism theory, and so there is no risk of people reading the theories from Wikipedia and believing them, which isn't exactly good ground for deleting an article. Azaan Habib 11:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Tyler Cowen on this article

Tyler Cowen's most recent column references this article, specifically to question the controversial second sentence. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

He then goes on to compare it with religious metaphors, which is rather disingenuous. QAnon followers don't think that "Donald Trump is leading the fight against a global cabal of Satanic pedophiles" is some sort of metaphor for the concept of Government restraining a population's baser urges, the Trump family resisting economic policies they imagine would fuck their kids, or Nero secretly trying to de-institutionalize Roman pederasty; they sincerely believe that Trump is actually, literally, historically trying to take down what they believe is a deliberate and explicitly organized conspiracy run by people who knowingly and devoutly worship Satan through physical sex with children.

He says "QAnon is more about a set of beliefs than a set of facts" -- but those beliefs are testable claims that are damnably false. We don't pretend that Young Earth Creationism, drinking Camel urine, or any comparable beliefs aren't wrong just because they have religious components. He also takes the CT's inclusion of figures like George Soros as a sign that QAnon followers are educated because Soros isn't well known in America, when it's just as easy to see that QAnon gets away with lying about Soros because most Americans don't know about him.

I know those objections are OR but it's still an opinion piece written by someone in the wrong field, who flaunts his ignorance of the topic as an excuse to JAQ off. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, what makes you so confident about that first paragraph? Much of political psychology research, like this paper from Bullock et. al, demonstrates that partisan individuals are willing to express beliefs they know to be false in support of their political affinity groups. I think Cowen is likely correct to argue that emphasizing the empirical status of QAnon beliefs betrays a misunderstanding of the movement. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what? You think factually outlining how QAnon is a completely-false mass delusion probably invented by an Internet troll "betrays a misunderstanding of the movement"? No, I think it's a reliably-sourced explanation and refutation of utter bullshit. That you apparently don't like us using reliable sources to explain how QAnon is utter bullshit, betrays a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Both Tyler Cowen and you are making the mistake of thinking there is something substantive behind QAnon. There is not. There is no there there. Scratch the surface and beneath you will find only phantoms. What you see is what you get - nonsense piled atop bullshit layered with obvious lies, believed only by complete morons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with including reliably-sourced refutation of QAnon beliefs. However, I do agree that having the second sentence be "no part of the theory is based on fact" suggests that the validity of the theory is important to understanding the movement, which it isn't. The beliefs have become fluid and vary from person-to-person, and followers (and Trump supporters in general) have repeatedly demonstrated that facts are not their priority anyway. As it says in the Vox article we cite, "conspiracy theories aren’t created by evidence, but by belief, or by the desire to believe, that there must be something more to the events that shape our lives, culture, and politics than accident or happenstance." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The validity of the theory is, of course, important to understand, because it's our responsibility to be clear that false and defamatory accusations are false and defamatory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

So if someone understands full and well that COVID-19 is spread by the coronavirus and is scientifically unrelated to 5G, but starts saying "well of course 5G makes people sick" to impress someone, it's suddenly not a conspiracy theory?

Until there's good and specific evidence that QAnonites are reading the CTs as anything but literal claims about current history (and not metaphysical claims about the world of ideas, or symbolic claims about events long past), that's what we have to go with. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a conspiracy theory, but most "QAnonites" are not as interested in the literal claims as you are. It's about a view of the state of the world (U.S. is controlled by deep state elites with nefarious intentions who engage in shady practices) and identification with a group they can relate to, while demonizing the groups they hate most (political and entertainment elites). Stupid people are typically less concerned with facts than with nebulous ideas. I think you're taking the religious analogy too literally. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bzweebl:, if we decide to include something about this, we could at most include a sentence stating that "Tyler Cohen believes that QAnon believers...", in line with our usual practice when including properly-sourced and -attributed opinions. Please propose the wording you'd like to see in the article. Then we can make a decision. Otherwise, this is just forum stuff and should stop. -- Valjean (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Nah, that sounds even worse. I was advocating that we move, remove or reword the second sentence of the lede to make the article seem less RationalWiki-esque and obsessed with the non-factual nature of QAnon beliefs. However, I accept that consensus is currently against me. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Not just the consensus. WP:FRINGE demands that we do not leave such questions open. That the American Meshuga Movement is not interested in facts does not mean everybody else is forbidden to be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarity of Initial Paragraph

I have read the entire page believing the initial paragraph about «leading to a "day of reckoning" involving the mass arrest of journalists and politicians.» was talking about arresting right-wing journalists, but after a minute looking at actual Qanon content, it seems this was actually meant to talk about arresting left-wing journalists. Essentially I read this as "day of reckoning" as something bad the Qanon people were expecting to happen but not looking forward to, instead of something good they are looking forward to ( which I now realize is the case ). I think this deserves a bit of clarification. Arthurwolf~enwiki (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Arthurwolf~enwiki, it may be unwise to try to distil any coherent message from QAnon content. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Well as I currently read the page, it does present information about QAnon's beliefs, and the way I read it was the polar opposite of what their beliefs actually are. So at the very least it should be clarified which of the two possibilities is the one that is *meant here*. If you have an argument about wanting to completely remove that piece of information, that's fine, but it's currently present, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's going to read it the opposite of how it's meant. Arthurwolf~enwiki (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit ambiguous. I suggest wording that sentence "QAnon[a] (/ˌkjuːəˈnɒn/) is a far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles running a global child sex-trafficking ring is plotting against President Donald Trump and that Trump is planning a day of reckoning known as "the Storm" in which thousands of members of the cabal will be arrested." This is more in line with the information presented in the rest of the article. I'll make that edit unless there are any objections. --Shimbo (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Relationship with Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

This recent salon.com article connects the narrative of today's Qanon to the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations some decades ago. The journalist may have gotten this idea from Qanon-ers that cite it and claim it was the "Franklin Coverup" and incorporate it into their conspiracy. I think the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations should either be mentioned in the article or go into the See also section.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, something about that should be added. QAnon is basically the '80s Satanic Panic all over again but with more overt messianic fascism, so any RS comparing with incidents in that are worth including IMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Added[6], please review it and edit it if needed so it meets guidelines.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As for Elijah's deleted comment, I'd like to think I helped a bit with my edit yesterday, which mentioned an earlier, anti-Republican version of the conspiracy. Probably 95% of the secondary sources on the internet are moderate to liberal. Conservative publications don't cover it so much.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg article

This Bloomberg article might be useful for the page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Background

The background section feels out of place as it jumps into a summery of Pizzagate right away. I feel it needs a bit of a lead in. Thoughts? blindlynx (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

QAnonism started off as the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That might be worth specifically mentioning before launching into the description of Pizzagate, I agree with blindlynx. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

True. Something to the effect of "QAnon is an offshoot of the earlier Pizzagate movement." might be a good intro sentence for that section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I see there was an attempt at something like that explanation but it contained some nuance that didn't quite work. While QAnon is a continuation of the Pizzagate CT, certain elements (such as the concept of an "Anon") predate it (I was technically an Anon during Project Chanology's heyday). That said, something along the line of HandThatFeeds suggestion is correct (with, in my observation, any non-QAnon pizzagaters either being secret QAnonists trying to use Pizzagate as an intro to QAnon or else non-fascists who have fallen for that moonbatshit). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Under Identity of Q

IT seems odd that it was reported as far back as 2018 by NBC that there is video evidence of the person known widely as "pamphlet anon", Coleman Rogers logging into Q's tripcode but his name is not floated anywhere else as a possible identity of "Q" https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531; specifically the section

"One archived livestream appears to show Rogers logging into the 8chan account of “Q.”The Patriots’ Soapbox feed quickly cuts out after the login attempt. “Sorry, leg cramp,” Rogers says, before the feed reappears seconds later.

Users in the associated chatroom begin to wonder if Rogers had accidentally revealed his identity as Q. “How did you post as Q?” one user wrote.

In another livestreamed video, Rogers begins to analyze a supposed “Q” post on his livestream program when his co-host points out that the post in question doesn’t actually appear on Q’s feed and was authored anonymously. Rogers’ explanation — that Q must have forgotten to sign in before posting — was criticized as extremely unlikely by people familiar with the message boards, as it would require knowledge of the posting to pick it out among hundreds of other anonymous ones."

slrry if my format is wrong it's been 10 years since I edited something on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8200:2600:5017:7F0B:B05E:9B29 (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I see we do use this NBC source several times. Is there something there that we're missing that should be included? -- Valjean (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I added this previously but it was removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have now re-added this to the "Identity of Q" section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Weasel words

Article makes heavy use of weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superpacket (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? This is an 8500 word article so pointing out these instances directly would be helpful in addressing your concern. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

More on QAnon churches

Discussion started here and got archived.

These sources got collected in the linked discussion:

• In the Name of the Father, Son, and Q: Why It’s Important to See QAnon as a ‘Hyper-Real’ Religion (Religion Dispatches, May 2020)
• QAnon Church (The American Conservative, May 2020)
• The Church of QAnon: Will conspiracy theories form the basis of a new religious movement? (The Conversation, May 2020)

And here are more links on the religious angle on QAnon that has developed in a lot of reliable sources:

• Opinion: QAnon: The alternative religion that’s coming to your church (Religion News Service, Aug 2020)
• Evangelicals are looking for answers online. They’re finding QAnon instead. (MIT Technology Review, Aug 2020)
• The Prophecies of Q (The Atlantic, June 2020)

Jlevi (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that these articles are mostly comparing Q to a religion, or speculating that it may become a new religious movement. We're not at the point of an actual Q faith yet. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

I want to point out that the cabal that Donald Trump fights is also stated to be New World Order-ian. Aertgan (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. No reliable source to confirm the validity of this conspiracy theory. Philip Cross (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

If you're trying to say there are similarities between the two conspiracies... it's plausible. However, without reliable, third-party sources saying so, we can't include it as that would be original research. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Reorg first few sections

The info in this article is organized a little haphazardly, making it hard to follow from start to finish. I'd boldly change it myself but I don't want to barge in if there's some logic I'm missing. So I'd like to recommend reorganizing/resectioning it as follows: (1) Start with Background, prior conspiracies, milieu, anything the reader needs to know upfront before reading the theory itself, (2) "Theory and claims" combining the "false claims" section from below as there's no difference between the theory and the claims, (3) "Origins and spread" tracking its growth into mainstream popularity, (4) Identity, (5) not sure what to do with the rest aside from reducing the number of sections and proseline but I can give it more thought if that would be helpful. czar 18:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

"QAnon[a] (/ˌkjuːəˈnɒn/) is a far-right conspiracy theory[b] alleging that a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles running a global child sex-trafficking ring is plotting against President Donald Trump" - I doubt very much that this is the essence of what most QAnon supporters think. It may have been correct some day in the past, but they don't mention it anywhere in their "basics" document. [7] Teun Spaans (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what I proposed? czar 17:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd Support a reorganization like this. It makes a lot more sense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

YouTube ban

"YouTube bans QAnon, other conspiracy content that targets individuals"

It's rather narrowly worded though:

“On the one hand, it is certainly more aggressive than their current harassment or conspiracy theory policies,” Lewis said. “On the other hand, by only prohibiting conspiratorial content that specifically targets other individuals or groups, it may leave huge amounts of leeway for QAnon content to continue to thrive.”

Would definitely fit into this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Quite so. Have added citations to The New York Times and The Washington Post. Philip Cross (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Cuties

The inclusion of this film in the "See Also" section and the brief description of it frames the very widespread criticism of the film as part of QAnon. The film has been criticised by very many people with no relation to QAnon for it's sexualisation of children and linking that criticism to QAnon seems like a dishonest way to try and discredit critics of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.199.53 (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The entire point of the film is as a critique on the sexualization of children in the entertainment industry. It was QAnon that began the "Netflix is promoting child porn!" angle. The fact other people got swept up in the frenzy isn't really relevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your feelings about the film and your opinion that the sexualisation of children is justifiable as some kind of ironic critique really isn't relevant, where is your evidence that QAnon was the first source to criticize the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.176.163 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You twisting HTF's words into saying that he's justifying sexualization of children rather indicates that you're the one going off of feelings here, and in the fashion of someone who would be duped by QAnon. If that wasn't the case, you would have understood what he meant instead of taking the most antagonistic interpretation possible. And now you're going to misinterpret my words because you've got to protect your rage totem and can't let things like cooperation or paying attention get in the way of that. If you want to prove me wrong, your next response (if you make one) needs to show that you understand that the film was actually opposing the sexualization of children. But how can that be? Easy: the marketing department made a huge mistake that does not reflect on the movie, and then luddites, people who watch YouTube instead of reading actual news, and some assholes who were really just angry that the protagonist wasn't a white man decided to insist that that one advert was the entire movie.

If your response fails to take that into account, we'll know that we can't rely on you to do any actual research, nor to pay attention to other users (especially when they have information you can't comfortably fit beside your rage-totems). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2020

Shouldn't QAnon be reclassified as a "Movement" not a "Conspiracy Theory?" 47.202.170.15 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Username⁶⁸⁹² 18:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

In-depth article

This may be relevant: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/tech/qanon-believer-how-he-got-out/index.html 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Failed Predictions

Would a list of QAnon's failed predictions be a useful addition to the article? There are credible sources that have listed QAnon's failures, for example this Daily Dot article QAnon Failed Predictions (The Daily Dot is considered "generally reliable for Internet culture" according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources).--Shimbo (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, we should at least touch on QAnon claims that directly relate to other articles, such as the Trump military parade. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added a section on 'failed prophecies' and reformatted the 'false claims' section to make it clearer. --Shimbo (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Picture edited to make Deadpool patch look like a Q

Even cursory analysis of the patch on the sheriff’s uniform would show that it is a Deadpool patch. Memorabilia from the Marvel Character Deadpool. Jedimedic77 (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The patch in the photo is nothing like the standard Deadpool patch, which is a red circle and vertical stripe with two white eyes on a black background, not a black 'Q' on a red background. I've just looked and I can't find any reference to the idea that the officer was wearing a Deadpool patch, even on right-wing/conspiracy theory sites.

Anyway, the main thing is if you want to change the caption to say the patch is either misconstrued or photoshopped then you you'll have to find a credible source that states that it was. As I say, I couldn't find any source making this claim. --Shimbo (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Not only is it not a photoshop, the sheriff was disciplined for it and demoted. Multiple sources:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/us/swat-leader-qanon-patch.html
• https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/12/04/that-qanon-wearing-broward-sheriffs-sergeant-has-been-disciplined/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/04/swat-team-leader-who-wore-qanon-patch-while-meeting-vice-president-pence-has-been-disciplined/

"“For this event, SWAT Team Leader — Sergeant Patten intentionally placed an unauthorized symbol / patch onto his agency issued SWAT vest to meet and post with V.P.O.T.U.S Pence,” the memo read."@Jedimedic77: you're going to need a heck of a source to contradict the multiple reliable sources and the proof in his being disciplined and demoted for it. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Tone of the article

This discussion has run its course, but keeps attracting new comments about other commenters word choice. If there are new concerns about the wording of the article, please start a new section to discuss them. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't believe for a second that there are is any factual basis for anything that qanon has said. But this article has a tone which is diminishing to Wikipedia. It is hard to explain, but as an example, one can listen to a news article that reports on the same facts as reported by, say, NPR, the BBC and Fox News. NPR and Fox will use a tone that presumes that their listeners have a viewpoint and which, to a certain extent, will denigrate anyone with an opposing viewpoint. The BBC will can produce a news article that reports the same facts, but which doesn't put out the attitude that "you are stupid of you don't agree with me". Now, think about this for a minute. Even if you are a strong believer in a viewpoint that can't be supported, an attack is less likely to change your mind than a well reasoned, supported article. This article seems to flop back and forth between a political screed and a well supported article. I guess that I feel that this article needs to be heavily edited. Leave in the time line. Leave in the facts. Take out the slant. Surely the facts speak for themselves, and as it sits, it will make a believer just lump Wikipedia with the "liberal mainstream media". Simicich (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC) This is far, far too vague to be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC) It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Using the word "lies" in the tone it's used in sounds more like a Facebook post than an encyclopedia article. Who writes articles like that? It's like childish accusations and name-calling or something instead of presenting facts in a dignified manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.107.33 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC) The theory is a blatant lie. I'm sorry something happened in your life that you've fallen for such a cartoony conspiracy theory, but we must keep common sense. This isn't an attack, but please see WP:COMPETENCE. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC) "No part of the theory is based on fact." This stamement is an opinion, not a fact. The reason why it is so is not in the references used as sources for this statement, but the way this statement is phrased. You see, when someone invents a theory, they base it on some facts. Otherwise it is a fiction, not a theory. So, is QAnon a conspircy theory, or is it not? If it is, then it is based at least on one fact, and that is a fact. Can you follow? So, please, remove this statement or rephrase this idea in such a way that it becomes a valid statement, like this: "Little proof has been found to support this theory". Or: "Some regard this theory as pure fiction". These statements prevent False balance while still maintaining neutral, encyclopedic tone. ENDrain (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC) — ENDrain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. @ENDrain: If we're going to carry that reasoning to it's (il)logical conclusion, then Game of Thrones isn't fiction because the existence of humanity, winter, castles, ravens, and swords are facts even if they're used in bizarre ways. Yes, the conspiracy theory starts off with things that exist (Russia, Donald Trump, the Democratic party), but it starts off by making false claims about those things that exist. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC) No, we will not remove it. There has been absolutely no proof cited in the media or in common sense to back this up. Please consider reading WP:COMPETENCE and understand "No part of the theory is based on fact." is an objective fact. I cannot follow your logic and I doubt it's backed by policy. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 'Hey, there is this verifyable fact, and here is my fictional narrative that connects/explains/builds up on that fact' - this is how a conspiracy theory usually starts. The theory itself, it couldn't have existed without a fact to be based onto. It would've been pure fiction otherwise, a made-up story about made-up facts based on concepts that exist IRL. You can't have "theory" and "no part is based on facts" in one sentence, it's a paradox. When put this way it sounds biased. This conspiracy theory is in fact pure fiction? Ok: "Known as a conspiracy theory, QAnon is in fact a work of pure fiction as it is not based neither does it reference any facts". ENDrain (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC) — ENDrain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. You need to learn what the colloquial phrase "conspiracy theory" means. It is not a scientific theory. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Most newspapers follow style books, like the NYT and AP style book. Paul Krugman said that when he started, the NYT didn't allow him to call someone a "liar" -- even if the person was a liar, and even though Krugman was writing an opinion column. More recently, they let Krugman call people "liar." However, they don't say that in their news columns -- because news columns are the voice of the newspaper, not the individual reporter. Wikipedia's style is more like news style than opinion style. There are lots of views and theories that I think are false, ridiculous, not based on fact, and arguably lies, but if I were writing in news style, I wouldn't use those words. I would attribute them to someone else, who could provide supporting arguments. I don't think Wikipedia's style sheets, policies and guidelines would allow you to say, "No part of the theory is based on fact." In Wikipedia style, I would say something like, "Repeated investigations by mainstream news media have concluded that the main claims of the theory are false." The statement, "No part of the theory is based on fact" is literally false. The theory is based on facts. Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, and Donald Trump are real people. That statement is using hyperbole to denigrate the theory. Why use hyperbole? Why exaggerate? The truth is bad enough. The decisions here should follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the article should use attributed opinions of WP:RSs, not the Wikipedia editors' personal opinions. Can we all agree on that? --Nbauman (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC) The theory isn't that the Clintons and Obama exist, the theory is that they're involved in a child sex ring and trying to bring down Trump or something like that. There is literally no validity to these claims and we don't want to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE by suggesting there could be truth to these theories in the absence of any evidence. We follow wiki politices, not the AP or NYT style guide. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC) That Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald Trump exist is not part of a conspiracy theory. Reliable sources say no part of the theory is based in fact and it is baseless. We rely on reliable sources, challenging that fundamental foundation is perhaps a topic for another venue. soibangla (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Hey, sorry to barge in here, but I came to learn about this a bit more, and was wondering if it was really appropriate to say "This article is about the Baseless conspiracy theory?" It doesn't really do anything. Not really interested in political bickering, just want know if this is appropriate tone for a hatnote. Ghinga7 (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC) @Muboshgu: Lol, an untrue conspiracy theory based off of nothing doesn't suddenly become valid because you mention real people. I can't accuse you of being a murderer and say that Bill Clinton help covered the body and now my nutty conspiracy theory becomes slightly factual because I mentioned Clinton. Conspiracy theories based on nothing remains fiction even if you invoke actual politicians. The theory is awful and lacks any sense of reality as every source points out and if we were to treat it seriously like you said, Wikipedia would lose any credence it had. It's time to read WP:Competence and realize this is an awful argument for an awful edit. It is not hyperbole to call a baseless conspiracy theory a baseless conspiracy theory, it's a blatant fact and if you believe otherwise I'd recommend WP:COI and WP:Competence again. Please do not interpret this as a WP:PERSONALATTACKS, I'm not attacking you just your points and arguments. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC) I find it... confusing, to say the least, in the light of the Epstein-related trials, to assume that the claims of a nation-wide pedophile ring were "debunked". But hey, that's the Wikipedia, after all... --Tuxman (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC) As someone not inclined to believe such theories. I'd heard this thing mentioned over and over in the media and finally came over here to figure out what they were talking about. I was kind of insulted by the tone of this article as well. It definitely is not written from WP:NPOV. It feels like the author of the article is more concerned with persuading the reader that the theory is false than accurately describing theory itself. For example Chemtrail conspiracy theory spends a good deal of space describing what the theory is exactly and what reasons people might have to believe the theory. I'm not asking for this article to present positive reasons to believe the theory, but I would like to at least come away with a sense of what the theory is and why these people believe it; and as it stands, this article doesn't do that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC) The conspiracy theory is completely false. That is documented fact. The conspiracy theory has spurred people into acts of terrorism and violence. That is also documented fact. The conspiracy theory, like most conspiracy theories, tends to change the details whenever part of it is falsified. "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,", from Conspiracy theory. There are entire sections of the article dedicated to the varied beliefs of this conspiracy theory (now commonly desccribed as a cult, https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/07/tech/qanon-europe-cult-intl/index.html) and if you believe they are not making it clear what exactly the cult believes, I submit that the problem is that the cult itself changes or rewrites beliefs without notice and isn't clear about the current beliefs beyond a few key points that are in the lead of the article. Part of the reason that the wikipedia article needs to be incredibly clear that the conspiracy theory is false is to make sure that wikipedia's article is not turned into a recruiting tool for a group of people known to be violently disconnected from reality. Does that make more sense? IHateAccounts (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC) Kraftlos, neutrality is not the midpoint between facts and batshit insanity. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

correcting sentence

Need to make a edit to replace sentence "and plotting against President Donald Trump" to now read "and plotting to support President Donald Trump" Lil playa408 (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 11:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

the distinction between a conspiracy theory and a cult?

I've noticed recently that some media sources are going ahead and calling this movement a cult. CNN NBC Rolling Stone Open Democracy WGBH just to name a few. Belief in a mysterious oracle, a rotating cast of illuminated ones who interpret the prophecies for the faithful, the utter inability to recognize when they were entirely wrong about something. Sounds like a cult to me. I think it may be worth mentioning at the very least that they are increasingly seen and referred to as a cult. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a good observation and the sourcing you provided is definitely solid. I Support this proposal. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"¿Por qué no los dos?" The Church of Scientology uses CTs for recruiting (I know, not RS but still insightful). Source amnesia, but I've seen Gnosticism as described as a collection of conspiracy theories about Genesis. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The only thing with this excellent collection of sources is some of them seem to me to be using 'cult' as a metaphor or allusion (the NBC article) or not directly calling QAnon a cult (Rolling Stone has quotes from a cult expert but classifies QAnon as a "system of conspiracy theories"). The CNN, WGBH and Open Democracy articles do directly call QAnon a cult so they're the strongest sources for this change, but WGBH and Open Democracy aren't on the list at WP:RSP. The CNN article also talk a lot about it being a "community".

I'd suggest adding a section named something like 'QAnon as a Sociological Phenomena' under 'Analysis', which contains sourced information about how QAnon has characteristics of a community, cult or religion. This could also bring in the sources that have been previously mentioned on this talk page suggesting that whether the accusations are true isn't the point as far as believers are concerned. This section could initially be sourced to the CNN article (and the WGBH and Open Democracy articles if they're reliable sources), and any future references to the characteristics of the group can go in this section too. --Shimbo (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

WGBH Educational Foundation overlaps so much with PBS that they have to be reliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The WGBH source is an interview with Travis View, which would probably need to be cited to him directly (he's also already cited in the article as a verified expert on the topic). 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Update Trump QAnon promotions

"According to analysis conducted by Media Matters for America, as of August 2020, Trump had amplified QAnon messaging at least 216 times by retweeting or mentioning 129 QAnon-affiliated Twitter accounts, sometimes multiple times a day."

This should now be changed to: As Of October 2020, 258 times via at least 150 QAnon-affiliated accounts. Source: Footnote QuantumWasp (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

QuantumWasp,  Done. Do try to use {{Edit extended-protected}} in future however as that makes it easier to find these requests. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 16:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

QAnon#Analysis

The first graf in this section looks a bit WP:ORish to me. Yes, one source does link QAnon to The Paranoid Style in American Politics, but it's one paragraph in a listicle. The second sentence also reads like a literature essay. What do others think? I am not well-versed in the QAnon mythos, so it's possible that this analysis is quite on-point/encyclopedic, but I'm not seeing it at the moment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Just skimming it, the important parts are cited to sources that make the argument stated in the article with regards to QAnon (so it's not WP:OR), but a lot of this should probably be attributed per WP:RSOPINION, since it's cited to opinion pieces - especially the Alexander Reid Ross piece, which is explicitly labeled opinion and is used as a cite for half the article. Ross is a subject-matter expert, so citing them prominently is fair, but it could still say something like "According to Alexander Reid Ross, doctoral fellow at the Center for the Analysis of the Radical Right, QAnon is..." --Aquillion (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2020

In 2020 media platform YouTube enacted a policy to stop the spread of misleading and dangerous information by prohibiting QAnon promoting content. Several Frazzeledferret (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Good point however where should it be added according to you? Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 17:32, 22 October 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Suggested change

Overall I think the intro gives a good overview of the theory, however I think the statement "No part of the theory is based on fact." is a bit blunt and un-informative and could be improved. I think the approach by the Pizzagate conspiracy theory seems much more informative which states "It has been extensively discredited by a wide range of organizations, including the Washington, D.C. police." since it clearly states the same information but also provides the reader with information of which organizations have discredited the theory. As a reader I think this type of information should actually be upfront and not hidden in the footnotes. Unlike many other conspiracy theories where it is very difficult to source and find credible people who spend time debunking the theory, this is a case where this is quite easy and there are many credible sources who have spent time to debunk the theory, so I think we should lead with that. I would therefore suggest to change "No part of the theory is based on fact." to "It has been extensively discredited by a wide range of organizations, including the FBI, which has labelled it a potential source of domestic terrorism." with the bold part of the sentence up for debate since this assessment is discussed further down in the 4th paragraph. Best regards. --hroest 14:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur. Adding extra detail to organizations who discredited it would strengthen the claim and make it look more neutral, especially given that the majority of people do not look at footnotes. QuantumWasp (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Doing that would just make those entities mega-targets for Qanon abuse. Besides any list of orgs or people who consider it to be a fact that Qanon is idiotic nonsense would have to include everyone on the planet who isn't one of the Qanon sheeple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite following parts according to NPOV

This article is very well sourced, however some of the current phrasing feels editorialized and biased. I've highlighted the phrases that I think should be reformed to more neutral language, and perhaps adding detail from footnotes into the text. Also added some parts that I think need to be improved overall.

• "No part of the theory is based on fact": Improvement to this has been linked above in the Talk Page
• "NBC News found that three people took the original Q post and expanded it across multiple media platforms to build internet followings for profit." : Perhaps change from found to reported, and add detail to for profit part instead of giving the conclusion.
• "'Q' is a reference to the Q clearance used by the U.S. Department of Energy." : This part should be moved before all of the references to Q start.
• "Bill Mitchell, a broadcaster who promotes QAnon" : perhaps "has repeatedly promoted QAnon", or something similar.
• "At an August 2019 rally, a man warming up the crowd before Trump spoke used the QAnon motto": sentence doesn't make grammatical sense.
• "This occurred hours after the publication of a report that the FBI had determined QAnon to be a potential source of domestic terrorism": sentence needs to be reworded to be more readable
• "The number of QAnon adherents is unclear as of October 2020": perhaps 'adherents' word should be changed.
• In June 2020, Q exhorted followers to take a "digital soldiers oath", and many did, using the Twitter hashtag #TakeTheOath: This part needs to explain what the digital soliders oath is. It is unclear without going to the footnote.
• "where they organized to wage information warfare to influence the 2020 United States presidential election.": while this again is true, I think it needs to be reworded, or have more details added to it. QuantumWasp (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've done some work on this. Here are the changes I made.

Some things I haven't changed:

• No part of the theory is based on fact...
  • You'll probably need to build consensus to change that
• At an August 2019 rally, a man warming up the crowd...
  • Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format
• The number of QAnon adherents...
  • Probably need to build consensus to change that, but I agree maybe "follower" would be better
• In June 2020, Q exhorted followers to take a "digital soldiers oath"...
  • Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format
• where they organized to wage information warfare
  • Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format

– Anne drew 18:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"At an August 2019 rally, a man warming up the crowd before Trump spoke used the QAnon motto": sentence doesn't make grammatical sense."

This sentence is grammatically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Free Speech

QAnon is clearly poisonous bullshit. But there is an issue of free speech. Should they be allowed to say these things or should there be arbiters of truth that ban unpalatable views? There has been some discussion on this that would be good to see in the article. The section at the end talking about reactions by some social media is good, but I think this line could be developed further by an expert. To me, it is a key point -- how does a democratic society deal with things like QAnon? Tuntable (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

What sources would you want to use for it? In particular, are there any non-opinion sources you'd want to cite for this? --Aquillion (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"...But there is an issue of free speech". So you say in your second sentence, and then fail to provide any example of free speech being an issue in the rest of your paragraph. The fact is there is no issue of free speech regarding QAnon because no government entity has ever censored them, in fact, with Trump the opposite is the case. The very existence of Qanon is proof that free speech is as robust as it ever has been. What you may be referring to is private companies (Twitter, Facebook, Jimbo's Gas Station, etc) deciding they don't need to provide access to their facilities to people who do things like spray painting swastikas all over those facilities. If you think 'free speech' should mean something else, then take it up with the page on 'free speech'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Right. Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia are private entities and forcing them to present domestic terrorist lies would violate their free speech (and nevermind the old myth "yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't protected by free speech"). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Banned by Patreon

Patreon has announced today that they will ban Q-Anon accounts as well: https://www.businessinsider.com/patreon-bans-qanon-conspiracy-theory-users-latest-tech-company-2020-10 IHateAccounts (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2020

Please change the first line to say “Not to be confused with Qanun” instead of “For the instrument, see Qanun (instrument)” thank you 2600:6C64:6C7F:37D4:A556:A40C:F2BE:6DA1 (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Terasail^[Talk] 23:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Expanded it a bit. Qanun, Canon and Kanon all have disambiguation pages. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2020 (2)

I want to delete this article because it promotes fake news. Jabpiz (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That's fine as long as you can get John F. Kennedy's permission to do so. Volunteer Marek 08:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Terasail^[Talk] 10:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Consider the troll hypothesis

QAnon doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory; it sounds like a parody of a conspiracy theory. And it started on 4chan and 8chan, which are full of trolls, not conspiracy theorists. I for one would appreciate some attempt to guess how many people QAnon "supporters" are just doing it for the lulz. This is important in order to decide how much of a threat it poses and how to oppose it. Arguing against it using reason will only encourage trolls. Philgoetz (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

QAnon definitely has legit supporters, even if it was a joke to begin with. Heck, tonight, voters chose 2 q-believers to head to Congress. SWinxy (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

People do genuinely believe it. However, if there are reliable secondary sources demonstrating that parts of it originate with trolls, that would be useful to include because it helps to discredit the conspiracy. To be honest it kind of already covers this in the third opening paragraph: reported that three people took the original Q post and spread it across multiple media platforms to build an internet following. QAnon was preceded by several similar anonymous 4chan posters, such as FBIAnon, HLIAnon (High-Level Insider), CIAAnon, and WH Insider Anon. Sxologist (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The "troll hypothesis" would need Wikipedia:Reliable sources to have inclusion in this article. Also, part of the problem of the "troll hypothesis" is the likelihood that "ironic nazis" were or are just actual nazis, and likewise that other "ironic" bigotries are indistinguishable from the real thing, with "actual bigotry camouflaged as ironic bigotry" being often used to smuggle the real thing into spaces where it would not be otherwise tolerated. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep, it's just a way to brush off the seriousness of it. Let's not forget that QAnon and pizzagate have lead to real terrorism threats. P.S. I wondered about the mentioning of the use of 8kun in the opening? To me, that inclusion seems like something that's gonna drive people to that forum. I know WP:NOTCENSORED applies and it is covered by Wired, so I have no strong opinion. Sxologist (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

New Republic has an article: Ironic Nazis Are Still Nazis:Hatred often hides behind a mask of jokiness. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree, see above. Sxologist (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• We have to go with what the sources say. Some early sources do discuss the difficulty of knowing how many of these people actually believe what they say, but the overwhelming majority of recent ones treat it as a serious set of beliefs among adherents. So with the right sourcing we could mention that aspect briefly, especially as part of its origins, but I don't think it can be made very prominent, since it's just not a significant aspect of how it's covered today. This wired story, say, does discuss the performative aspects. The idea of QAnon as a game (or something like a game) for participants is covered here and here. So it's something we could devote a few sentences to somewhere... but that Wired piece is in the stark minority in terms of expressing skepticism, and does make clear that its results are based on just one poll; even it (and definitely the other two) make it clear that real believers have been caught up in it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Impact in the UK

Not going to edit, but [8] Doug Weller talk 18:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey! I know it's late but I have added that in the article, as well as a few more references to the UK and influence of QAnon outside of the US, which I think this article needs to have some more examples of. --Bangalamania (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

In the section on Mike Pence's comments, the link on the administration's role in "giving oxygen" to the theory is broken. This can be resolved by either (1) removing the link or (2) redirecting the link to QAnon#Donald Trump. -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Zaiisao: #2  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Source

Solid source about QAnon's reaction to the results of the recent presidential election from the New York Times: "Shocked by Trump’s Loss, QAnon Struggles to Keep the Faith". I'd add something about it myself, but I'm not sure which section would be most appropriate (or perhaps if a new one should be created?) Thoughts? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps retitle "Origin and Spread" to "History" and add a paragraph there? Smithereen (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the "Incidents related to Trump's 2020 campaign" section. I came here specifically to see if there was a Q reaction to Trump's loss so I'm glad to see this story from earlier this week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added a few sentences to that section: [9]. We should probably also add that Q has not posted a drop since the election, assuming that is still true. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind on that last bit: [10] GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Report by Hope not Hate on QAnon in the UK

[11] - mentions a Charlie Ward (also see [12]) and Martin Geddes " a computer scientist from Staines, being one of the most popular QAnon influencers in the world". They also discuss David Icke's role in laying the groundwork. They also did a survey of support in the UK.[13] Doug Weller talk 15:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks! I've added Geddes and Ward to the article. The survey of support is already mentioned in that section as well. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder: Keep it civil and keep it respectful - and don't bite

Hi everyone! Lurking admin here. Thanks to everyone who works tirelessly to maintain this article and all the drama, complexity and emotion that comes with it. I just want to encourage folks to visit WP:DONTBITE for a gentle reminder on keeping it civil and being friendly with newbies. (And I say this as someone who disagrees with all things QAnon!) Also feel free to refer people to WP:Teahouse to get further clarification and information. Our team of volunteers there are well trained at being friendly and patient. Thanks again everyone - you are appreciated! Missvain (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

p.s. The page protection expired today so I extended it for three months. Missvain (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"baseless" used inappropriately with in article.

I think the word "baseless" has an aura of "factual information". Even though several of the references include the word "baseless", that does not support the use of the word within the article. "Fringe", "far-right", "controversial", etc. are appropriate replacements.

Reference #36 has no mention of QAnon. The only connection appears to be the fact that the subject of #36 is Rosanne Barr, and in reference #37 Rosanne mentions QAnon.

FringeRider (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Why would we remove a well-sourced and factual term simply because you don't like it? It is factual that QAnon is baseless nonsense. That you apparently disagree with this fact is irrelevant to Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed the Roseanne cites and the word unhinged, although it is true. Baseless is well cited. O3000 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, baseless is well cited according to the sources. However, I wanted to ask whether it was necessary/appropriate to include it in the hatnote? It seems out of place, that's all. The rest of the hatnote seems fine, just that part seems odd. Ghinga7 (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Theory

Throughout this article the word "theory" is used instead of "conspiracy theory". Let's be clear, QAnon is not a theory, by any stretch of the imagination, it's Class A bullshit. We should be using either conspiracy theory (which has a clear and specific meaning), or QAnon, but definitely not theory. Acousmana (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

agreed, i changed some of them but other instances need sentences to be reworked. blindlynx (talk)

thanks again, think I managed to cover the rest... Acousmana (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

awsome! we should probably keep an eye on this though. blindlynx (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and thank you both for keeping an eye out! IHateAccounts (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are only "failed predictions" listed?

No doubt there are far more failed predictions than true predictions, but why are only the former listed?

If there are no successful predictions, is the section name (false predictions, claims and beliefs) appropriate? It seems important to emphasise that the majority of predictions have failed upfront, but at the same time, some indication of Q's successes (if any) seems important too.

If there have been successful predictions, some indication of the success rate would provide further information about:

• Possible identity/motives/perspective/background of the Q poster
• Relevance of the Q narratives to factual events in American politics

A stopped clock is right once a day; a propagandist is going to be correct more often than a crazy person (and so Q's accuracy says something about Q and their posts, even if it is not very high).— Preceding unsigned comment added by N4ut1lu5354r3c00l (talk • contribs) 02:17, November 24, 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source which says there are any successes? If not, then we're done here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The section name is accurate, as they only have failed predictions. None of the QAnon predictions have proved accurate. In this case, the clock is only displaying gibberish, so it can't be right twice a day. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The thing is the failed predictions are sourced to a reliable source. If there's a reliable source that lists correct predictions then go ahead and add the correct predictions. The problem you may find is that after his early, specific predictions all failed 'Q' has moved to cryptic Nostradamous-type mutterings that you can read anything into, so it's hard to say whether they're 'true' or not. I just tried a search and the nearest I could find to a reliably sourced correct prediction is this, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement (it says his prediction about Jeffrey Epstein was wrong, but not completely wrong) : https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/does-the-jeffrey-epstein-indictment-qanon.html --Shimbo (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Not totally wrong isn't the same as true. blindlynx (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding child welfare groups

Sources:

1. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/28/politics/qanon-child-welfare/index.html
2. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/qanons-obsession-with-savethechildren-is-making-it-harder-to-save-kids-from-traffickers/
3. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2020/10/18/rise-qanon-movement-derailing-local-anti-trafficking-organizations/3639727001/
4. https://www.insider.com/qanon-conspiracy-theories-sex-trafficking-survivors-criticize-misinformation-2020-10

I'm not sure if this should go into the "Usage of #SaveTheChildren and Freedom for the Children" section or be its own section. Asking for input and help on wording from others. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Two more possible sources

@Drmies: @GorillaWarfare: I noticed that these (Wired article, Financial Times video segment) aren't reflected here.

1. https://www.wired.com/story/qanon-most-dangerous-multiplatform-game/
2. https://www.ft.com/video/372cac40-0f6f-498b-8c19-7b635142296e

I think they may have some points to offer, related to how the QAnon conspiracy theory is structured and operates. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe have a link to some of their websites?

First: Wow. I have never seen a article with so many guidelines or what ever it is called.

Besides that, it would be reasonable to link to give people a possibility to see what the article is actually about.

And I must say that the article gives a nervous impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.232.169.174 (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

With organizations that have an official website, we do usually link to that. However, there is no "official" QAnon website, and I don't think we should be deciding which of the various QAnon-related sites ought to be linked. You could argue that 8chan/8kun is the "official" website for QAnon since that is where Q drops are initially posted before being picked up by aggregators, but we don't link to 8chan for other reasons. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"Q drops"--that sounds so exciting! Are they? Can Q write decent prose? Drmies (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Think Trump tweet meets cult leader sermon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

That sounds oddly exciting. "Drop"--like real intelligence, huh? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

That was the idea, yeah. They were likening it to dead drops, to give it a more spy-thriller feel. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Jim Acosta

Per WP:BRD, I am bringing this edit here for discussion. As I read the first paragraph, it does not specifically document any link that QAnon had with harassing Jim Acosta. The second paragraph simply documents an evasive response from the White House. Unless there is further detail in other sources, I don't understand the rationale for including this section. NorthBySouthBaranof disagrees. Let's discuss. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Identity of Q

The Swiss Company OrphaAnalytics is currently analyzing texts from several suspects, including Jim and Ron Watkins Source - Cocovfefe (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Cocovfefe, that already appears to be in the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2021

Qanon is a cult 93.109.187.42 (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2021 (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. Seagull123 Φ 13:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Kate Shemirani#Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2020

I'm leaving this here to ask editors involved here if they could have a look at an edit request at the talk page here: Talk:Kate Shemirani#Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2020, which asks a question about QAnon. If anyone could give a better answer than I did, that would be much appreciated, thanks! Seagull123 Φ 00:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The reference picture from the main page in Wikipedia that redirect to this Article is so ambiguous.

The picture doesn't self explain (the pic about a SWAT member). I was thinking put a logo of Qanon movement, because it makes a reference and reconnaissance work. The actual picture is ambiguous and you don't understand it if you don't read the image caption. Mirlo Nuncira (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mirlo Nuncira: Which page are you referring to when you mention the "main page in Wikipedia that redirect to this Article"? I'm not seeing any mention of QAnon on the main page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I am refering to the mobile app (sorry for not explain it) on the top read english articles, I guess it takes the first picture of the article so is change that picture for the common logo (another picture in the article) Mirlo Nuncira (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mirlo Nuncira: The photo on mobile is the same as the first photo in this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: So, what about change the photo of the logo with the first picture of the SWAT member? I think is the solution, any problem with that? Mirlo Nuncira (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to fix this, since we can't just swap the images without it making less sense. Might be worth seeing if we want to move the Q logo to the top, and the Pence photos further down, but I'd rather have other people chime in about that first. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I just made a similar edit without checking the talk page, adding a (previously unused) flag photo from Commons. Agree with Mirlo. The MOS:LEADIMAGE should be clear and representative, and a photo of a SWAT team that includes a QAnon badge detail that's not immediately obvious, where the article actually has to zoom on it specifically for the next picture, isn't ideal there. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ECP

I know I can't even edit this but dont you think this should be on extended confirmed protection because of it controversy, same with the [boys] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flahrdahgeorgiah (talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"who is fighting the cabal"

Is Trump still fighting the cabal from Palm Beach? I don't know how to confirm or deny this, but I assumed his campaign against the Deep State "ended" when he left office? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand, those who are still holding on to QAnon think that Trump is somehow still going to... do whatever it is they wanted him to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This gives me some hope that some of the cultists are giving up on their golden calf. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe he's looking for the cabal on a local Florida golf course, with OJ?