Talk:QAnon

QAnon is the person not the theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metonymy: "the substitution of the name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant, for example suit for business executive, or the turf for horse racing." It is a seldom used word [1], and use of seldom-used terms is shown to make reading more difficult [2]. Substitution of one thing for another is by definition obscuring to those unfamilar with such substitution. Obfuscate: "make obscure, unclear, or unintelligible". You're claiming a note on the very first word, which a reader needs to read in full for comprehension and which references three other/separate articles and includes a relatively obscure term that necessarily obscures for some readers, does not tend to impede clarity? Sure, we'll need to agree to disagree. Let's lighten up. Jokes combined with rhetorical devices don't harm people. Holon (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Des22z: Typing in some variation of "is a center right" in the Wikipedia search bar returns lots of examples (e.g. [3] or [4]) Bennv3771 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2019

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