Talk:QAnon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:02, 17 July 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the QAnon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

Please read before starting

Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents QAnon in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are:

Also of particular relevance are:

In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

QAnon has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 27, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
February 23, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:Vital article

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative Views GA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism GA‑class Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet culture GA‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American GA‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism GA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States GA‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020 and 2021.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 17 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Noam Cohen (October 26, 2020). "Wikipedia's Plan to Resist Election Day Misinformation". Wired.

Infobox?

No consensus for the change, HATting due to trolling attempts. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The French Wikipedia has an infobox for it.

Should an infobox be added? 103.169.34.63 (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's needed. Besides that French Wikipedia inevitably has different standards than English Wikipedia, there doesn't seem to be much to create for the English version as a topic, especially compared to larger events it contributed, those being Antisemitism and the Jan6 event. Carlinal (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the author of this page is writing from a position of authority they could not possess. It would appear they are (A) American Democrat (B) A Trump hater (C) a member of Qanon (D) all of the above 192.174.101.136 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than one person edits this page. And read wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation

Not a forum

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The sentence "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goals of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States." might be a disinformation. This claim has to be first proved in court with proving both that there was an interference and that if it was one that its goals were as stated in this sentence. Unless it is proven (and it is not) delete the whole article. Andra1ex (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how Wikipedia works. We base our articles on information from reliable sources, which are provided in the article. We are not a court of law, and do not hold to the same standards as a court would. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The muller report was debunked forever ago. Nor released an article as far back a March 24th, 2019: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706385781/mueller-report-finds-evidence-of-russian-collusion 174.218.20.9 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Npr

174.218.20.9 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not debunked. You can read the article at Mueller report which is heavily referenced. But more on point to the OP, the Russian Government did interfere with the 2016 election in Trump's favor. See Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source is another wiki page citing predominantly biased left-wing sources? Your joking. Okay, just so we don't turn this into tribal political argument I'll go ahead and pull up the official special investigation by John Durham for your understanding:https://www.justice.gov/sco-durham . In the least the page should take into consideration the pending resolution into the Russian Colusion story. This isn't supposed to be the place to write opinions from a singler perspective. Both major opinions on the matter should be presented from a non-baised perspective. The wiki page on 'Sources' literally state that: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." 174.218.18.71 (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "no collusion" phrase and narrative are Trump's lies, unfortunately often repeated by reliable sources. There is no evidence Mueller ever said such a thing. here's some reading for you:

So it's okay to say that Mueller was unable to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination", even though there is some evidence for it, but it's not okay to say that Mueller did not find evidence of "collusion" or that there was "no collusion" between Trump and his campaign with the Russians. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK to say that "not 100% of what Trump has said so far has already been proven to be correct" (although many thins have been proven, e.g., the fact that Covid came from a Chinese bio lab, that therapeutic treatments like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine are effective, etc.), but it is not OK to say that "Trump lies", because you (at least theoretically) can be held accountable for a defamation. The "collusion" is a part of the mass media narrative, unfortunately repeated by most of the mass media, which is clearly an reliable source for many decades.

You are either confused or intentionally saying wrong things. The first can can be healed by opening your mind to the possibility of being wrong and then applying logical reasoning instead of watching TV. The second is a deeper problem, but your conscious can also be a cure. I obviously cannot conclude so far which reason (1st or 2nd) is the correct one, but either way it'd be better if both are eliminated and substituted with a mixture of truth and good intentions. 24.228.151.249 (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:nlt. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N/A 24.228.151.249 (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"that statement is false and damaging, and I ask that it be corrected." 24.228.151.249 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nor can I find the line you refer to. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the line is in your own post above 24.228.151.249 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure I have even used the word Trump (let alone the line you object to) in this thread. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it was an answer to the post above "No, the "no collusion" phrase and narrative are Trump's lies, unfortunately often repeated by reliable sources." 24.228.151.249 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That statement you made is inherently biased in of itself. There is a difference between stating reliable sources claim Trump lies to your statement of Trumps Lies as a narrative. You cannot play this one sided opinion rethoric with the subject at hand. I'm not stating this out of agreeing with any one statement but rather of the fact that there is major dispute from within the government on this issue of the FBI report. Especially given the fact that there was a recent 3 year long investigation into Mullers claims which have been widely questioned by many sources and government figures from both sides of the issue for quite a few years now. So this is not a simple matter of stating any one opinion is an absolute lie or truth by fact and the statements on this page eludeding to that subject should be reflective of a neutral stance regardless of personal preference. This isn't a reddit. 174.218.18.71 (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2601:680:8100:3060:69FA:31FD:9774:CBA4 (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you should be reset, and let somebody else care for this page as the writer is clearly biased to one side of thinking!

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. 💜 melecie talk - 07:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qanon murders

you forgot all the murders that have happened like the surf school Dad in California...all of those incidents need to be mentioned 173.81.58.252 (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All content of our articles has to be supported by reliable sources. Please tell us precisely what you would like to see included, providing links to relevant sources. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is coverage of the QAnon influenced dad who killed his two young children with a spearfishing gun. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other incidents are covered at Timeline of incidents involving QAnon. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy Theory"

I counted 200 instances of the phrase "conspiracy theory" on this page. 200! The author(s) don't seem able to refer to X without prefixing it with "conspiracy theory". This isn't journalism or good writing but reveals a massive underlying bias. Just because there is something out there that the author(s) do not agree with does that warrant always without fail adding a "conspiracy theory" prefix to? This is a writing style for the modern day cancel culture, showing a total intolerance of the author(s) to this subject matter.

I am not alone seeing through this underlying bias here, and see another person has commented "Personally, I think you should be reset, and let somebody else care for this page as the writer is clearly biased to one side of thinking!". Well said as this article is effectively unreadable due to it's overwhelming sickening bias.

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 ::[https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2023-02-01/death-penalty-decision-coleman Here] is coverage of the QAnon influenced dad who killed his two young children with a spearfishing gun. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 :::Other incidents are covered at [[Timeline of incidents involving QAnon]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
+== "Conspiracy Theory" ==
+I counted 200 instances of the phrase "conspiracy theory" on this page. 200! The author(s) don't seem able to refer to X without prefixing it with "conspiracy theory". This isn't journalism or good writing but reveals a massive underlying bias. Just because there is something out there that the author(s) do not agree with does that warrant always without fail adding a "conspiracy theory" prefix to? This is a writing style for the modern day cancel culture, showing a total intolerance of the author(s) to this subject matter.
+I am not alone seeing through this underlying bias here, and see another person has commented "Personally, I think you should be reset, and let somebody else care for this page as the writer is clearly biased to one side of thinking!". Well said as this article is effectively unreadable due to it's overwhelming sickening bias.