Talk:QAnon

Movement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protection

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

Errors in article-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-Wiki organizing

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2018

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2018

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buzzfeed published an article[3] today with the title "It's Looking Extremely Likely That QAnon Is A Leftist Prank On Trump Supporters." Should a section or subsection of the article be included to document reportage of hoax potential? Siberian Husky (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Non Neutral Discussion Points

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

Incidents

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

There is not a strong connection or cause associated with the suspect as far as what I've read with QAnon. Most sources quote JJ MacNab (researcher on anti-government extremism, like ISIS), "Based on his social media pages, Clark is a sovereign citizen who believes in just about every kooky conspiracy out there, including QAnon, Pizzagate, Jade Helm 15, flat earth theories, NESARA, Jesuit conservancies, shape-shifting lizard overlords. You name it, he believes it."[4] One of the suspect's posts from one of last year's fire indicated fear of Agenda 21[5] and an on-camera brief interview he said MS-13 was after him[6]. Also, his "issues" have caused problems with his neighbors and local officials, not national politics. StrayBolt (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Corrections

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

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

NPOV

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2018

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2018

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

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

End of ECP

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2018

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

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

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

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

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

Photo of Pence with Q guy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completely biased

First time reading this article and I agree it is very biased. First off, the statement that Qanon's accusations of liberal Hollywood celebrities, politicians, etc. are false should be considered "weasel words" at worst. Documentation, please, that you have proven Qanon's accusations to be FALSE. It's not false just because you can't find evidence that it isn't. Knock it off and get back to being like a real encyclopedia. Write such a statement as an objective, not as a biased opinion. I miss it when biased statements like that used to be removed or corrected. Now they just get left in an article. This is why Wikipedia is imploding on itself and can't find enough donors (I stopped donating several years ago). What, it's ok to make a statement like that without citation, when it fits the agenda? Who are we trying to protect here, really?66.227.209.60 (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is incredibly biased. I'm tired of seeing articles on political topics, that aren't left-leaning, being labelled as far right. This movement is only far-right, if your viewpoint originates from the far-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnedresponsibility (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Which "movement" would you be referring to? This article is about, as reliable sources discuss, a crazy, entirely-unfounded set of conspiracy theories which have thus far amounted to lots of people looking really stupid on the Internet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)