Talk:QAnon

Call it what it is

I think people here should stop pussyfooting around what QAnon is: it's a dangerous, brainwashed cult of violent, seditionist thugs who plotted to kill Pence and Pelosi all because of a string of lies spread by a psychopathic failure of a world leader. These psychos incited a riot and got people killed. Don't hedge bets in how you describe them here--they're crazy and they're idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.149.12 (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"disproven and discredited"

The first sentence says "QAnon is a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory". I think we should just shorten it to "debunked". Anyone else? Sergei zavorotko (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

'Debunked' has recently become a slur by the certain actors to delegitimize and cast doubt. This is best kept as is. I must assume this is a good faith suggestion, but the discourse as of late means this word isn't useful in modern discussion, but a dog whistle.

Although if you're ok with it, instead of 'debunked', I think dishonest, fraudlent, misleading, or untrustworthy would be better exchanges, assuming this page needs changes, which there is no reason for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.146.230 (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any dog-whistle usage for "debunked". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

“Debunked“ is imprecise. The current phrasing indicates that it has been both proven to be non-factual, and proven to be non-credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.253.224 (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sergei zavorotko. I think most readers will find the current phrasing to be essentially redundant, especially for the first sentence in the lede. At least as far as the first sentence is concerned, "debunked" covers the same thing in a more succinct manner.Behindthekeys (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I differ and concur with the IP 104.148.253.224. Disproven" indicates that it has been proven factually false; "Discredited" speaks to the complete lack of credibility of the various accusations made by Q-Anon proponents. Substituting merely "debunked" is inadequate in this regard. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

agree, debunked preferable, and usually what we use when some bs has been categorically dismantled and shown to be complete fucking codswallop. One "disproves" actual theories, this is not, nor has it ever been, a theory, it's delusional nonsense. Acousmana (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you got your indentation wrong, since IHateAccounts was saying they disagree with including "debunked." Further, one can disprove any statement, not just theories, so that's not a good argument for this change. And QAnon has been disproven, handily, given that none of their predictions came true. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• The media (here at least), tend to use the term "a baseless conspiracy theory" ... which avoids the question of who debunks and discredits things. example. Reading the whole first (current) sentence of the article - "QAnon is a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotting against US president Donald Trump, who is fighting the cabal". I really haven't been following this story much, as it's so utterly fringe, and so obviously extremist and racist ... but is that really the best description of it? That sounds more like a parody than reality ... surely this must be centred about more than "a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring" ... I'd assumed that was just people making fun of one of the whackier elements of this group - not the core belief. Have I missed something, or has someone been playing with the lead? Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nfitz: No, that is really the core belief structure of QAnon followers, as batshit insane as it sounds. Per the New York Times[1]:

What is QAnon?

QAnon is the umbrella term for a sprawling set of internet conspiracy theories that allege, falsely, that the world is run by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who are plotting against Mr. Trump while operating a global child sex-trafficking ring.

QAnon followers believe that this clique includes top Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and George Soros, as well as a number of entertainers and Hollywood celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, Ellen DeGeneres and religious figures including Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama. Many of them also believe that, in addition to molesting children, members of this group kill and eat their victims in order to extract a life-extending chemical from their blood.

According to QAnon lore, Mr. Trump was recruited by top military generals to run for president in 2016 in order to break up this criminal conspiracy, end its control of politics and the media, and bring its members to justice.

I really do wish that I could tell you it was made up but alas... IHateAccounts (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"members of this group kill and eat their victims in order to extract a life-extending chemical from their blood" ... oh come on. Surely it's more likely that someone has highjacked my computer here and I'm on Candid Camera right? I've seen more believable stuff in The Beaverton or on This Is That. Struggling to comprehend how anyone who believes this isn't held for psychiatric observation. Nfitz (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nfitz: They probably should be, once identified and caught. On the other hand, that is literally the set of beliefs. The fact that they're cribbing from age-old anti-semitic, nazi/neo-nazi bullshit like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ought to make it a hard sell but I've seen people go down that rabbit hole and once they're inside it's a fucking cult.[2] IHateAccounts (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

But it's clearly a parody, to the usual point of unbelievability. Not a cabal of bankers ... but pedophiles? And their saviour isn't someone who isn't a banker ... but Trump of Epstein fame? I've seen people go down rabbit holes of mental illness before ... but it's involved non-existent stalkers, and romantic entanglements that later proved never to exist - but did exist in their mind ... . This ... I just can't fathom. Just reading this, and hearing that some really believe it, almost makes me think I must be on such a prepice! But we are off-topic. Go with "baseless conspiracy theory". But ... how is something so nutcase even in the conspiracy theory category ... there must be another term ... Delusional disorder comes to mind; though there'd need to be sourcing. My mind is completely blown ... Nfitz (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nfitz: I really cannot express how much I wish that it WERE a parody... but sadly it's not, it's the actual deal. It spreads itself by making up new shit, like the Wayfair "child selling" conspiracy theory [3] that leads suckers back into it. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I really do think a lot of the wording is redundant. For example, we don't need to be calling it a Baseless Far-Right Conspiracy Theory. We don't need to call it both disproven and discredited either. Debunked sums it up very well, and most importantly, it has a more neutral tone. We could leave all the redundant wording in place and the content of the article is the same, however, it has a very, angry per se, tone. As if it were written by, with no better way of explanation, an angry far-left progressive fuming after seeing Mike Pence in that picture with the QAnon kooks. Also, echoing what has been stated above. In order for a theory to be discredited, it first must be an actual theory, and in order for it be discredited, it must first have credit. Also, we don't need to be putting "Falsely", after words such as allege. It's true that the allegations are false, but it only needs to be said once. This article needs a lot of work. JazzClam (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Good points all. I think that to condense the meaning of disproven and discredited, the opening sentence could say unfounded. Which precisely says that there is no evidence without sounding redundant. The first few sentences could mention "extremist movement" as well -- obvious but worth stating at the beginning for reasons of convention. On a side note, this recent article[1] could be a good citation, most of the information is already here but some quotes can be incorporated. Rauisuchian (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rauisuchian: I completely agree with you. Unfounded is better than debunked, because, again, in order for something to be debunked it first must have some credibility, which QAnon does not have. Also, I agree that we need to specify "Extremist Movements" more often, because certain parts of the article imply that QAnon is something believed in by all right wingers, no matter how moderate or extreme, which is untrue. JazzClam (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"something to be debunked it first must have some credibility," not at all. Demonstrating that something is untrue, false, a sham, bullshit, absolute fucking codswallop, etc. that's all it means, nothing more. Acousmana (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

As I replied above: disproven indicates that it has been proven factually false; discredited speaks to the complete lack of credibility of the various accusations made by Q-Anon proponents. Substituting merely "debunked" is inadequate in this regard. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfounded is good, again, using disproven could inadvertently imply that it required disproving, it actually didn't, because it was quite evidently bollocks from the outset, same for discredited, it never had any credit, it was horsehit, only wingnuts and bored housewives gave it credence. Acousmana (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that JazzClam is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See Special:Permalink/999792924 § JazzClam for details. — Newslinger talk 03:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This article's tone is non-neutral - it reads like counter propaganda.

Also, it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

So I would argue strongly that "disproven" be removed, but that rather the specific claims be addresses and disproven where possible (obviously with research) JMPZ (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

An absolute, unequivocal "no" to that. This has been discussed countless times before, both here and at virtually every other conspiracy theory article. Reliable sources call QAnon baseless nonsense, so we do too. Responding to each and every BS claim lends undue weight to those claims. You're confusing neutrality with false balance. If a random person on the internet makes a claim, and all RS and mainstream sources ignore it or state that it's nonsense, we don't need to, and in fact can't, dissect it. See WP:Fringe. Also see the past archives of this talk page and maybe the Sandy Hook one, so you can understand policy here. But just as a heads up, because I've dealt with a lot of people making the arguments you're making: I'm not going to have a conversation with you on it, and you do not have consensus to make any of the changes you're pushing for, and if you do make them, you may be reported to admins for disruptive editing. Not saying that you have done that or will, but it's a common pattern, and the way to deal with it is well established. Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's funny because I don't believe any QAnon theories but when someone is telling me something and they lead in with how it's 'disproven and discredited' I am immediately suspicious of whether they have an ulterior motive. I think that's just human nature, almost like the person has 'jumped the gun' in persuading the reader one way or the other. It's not neutral because it's read as an objective statement, rather than a statement from a reliable source (even if it is). Most people who visit wikipedia don't even know what citations are, let alone think about them as they're reading. I think the page should be rewritten to be more like the page '9/11 conspiracy theories'. The first line describes what the theories are, then the second line notes that reliable sources have rejected the theories. It feels far less like a Vox-tier hit piece and more like a neutral article.101.98.134.21 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're arguing that the writing should be dumbed down, that's really not a good argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you implying the current lead is sophisticated or intelligently written? That's a bold claim. I think it should be rewritten to be like literally every other conspiracy theory article instead of being imbued with the insanity of the current US political climate. Literally every single other mainstream conspiracy article starts with a sentence which describes the content of the conspiracy without using adjectives like 'false' or 'discredited', this one is the exception, not the rule. Probably because it has been worked over too much for too long by people with too much time on their hands. 101.98.134.21 (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• We definitely need some words to that effect for WP:FRINGE reasons. It might be worth looking at precisely how the sources describe it to get a sense of which to use, if we're considering changing it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be removed, if just as absurd ideas like 9/11 and Holocaust denial don't have this I really don't see the need. The absurdity of this theory speaks for itself. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The severity of the delusion plus the activities that inspire it are what determines how severely we should dismiss it. There's a cottage industry dedicated to finding Bigfoot (which we dismiss) but very few people believe in physical Dragons and most of them think they're extinct.

As insane as 9/11 conspiracy theories are, they are a different animal to the QAnon cult. 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists do acknowledge that the WTC buildings were hit by planes and then fell (they just imagine extra steps and blame different people). QAnon starts with the assumption that truth is ontologically defined as whatever glorifies Trump and then just spews out whatever distractions from that immediately disproven assumption exist.

While there were undoubtedly some 9/11 troofers at the Capitol attack on Jan 6, that wasn't the core belief that drove them to build gallows and call for the murder of elected gov't officials -- it was their devotion to their god-emperor and his prophet Q. When QAnon is as much a historical oddity as the Cult of Reason or Jonestown, we can tone down the language. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

First Wiki is a encyclopedia not an activist site, language should remain neutral no matter the topic. Second what your writing above in solely opinion. QAnon is based on lies and people reading into things like Jeffery Epstein, it is no different than Holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers reading into what they wanted based on the Iraq war, Israel, etc. They all take things by misreading facts and lies, they should not be treated differently. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia writing follows WP:RS coverage. WP:RS coverage, in this case, indicates first that it is false, discredited, a conspiracy theory, etc... and THEN, if the article merits, delves a little into the beliefs of QAnon adherents. Therefore, the lead states FIRST that the theory is disproven and discredited, before listing the tenets of the conspiracy theory. @Ian.thomson: is correct: once QAnon is 30-40 years into the past, and it's being treated as an intellectual curiosity rather than being a very real threat because its adherents are violent nuts, then the WP:RS coverage will be different and Wikipedia's (if Wikipedia still exists 30-40 years from now) will follow. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of Holocaust deniers are violent and committed terror attacks, there is no difference other than one group believes that this deserves special treatment, despite being different than all other articles. The violent part does make sense either, should we say that about the Russia investigation cause 2017 Congressional baseball shooting was motivated by claims that Trump was controlled by Russia? No now of course the two are different things, but the point is that something that is a conspiracy should not be treated differently based on vague notions of what could happen. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Isolated holocaust deniers - most of whom have primarily not been "holocaust deniers" but members of other violent groups, such as neo-nazi groups or the KKK - have committed terror attacks, but QAnon is different in the scope and scale, especially as shown most recently with the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol‎. Trying to compare the two and arguing that the articles should be similar is WP:OTHERSTUFF and a failed argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not other stuff, it is about having a standard across the site. Also the storming has little bearing, not everyone at the protest was Qanon and the rioters who stormed were not all Qanon, again the absurdity stands for itself, no need for extra wording just keep it concise. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not extra wording. "Disproven" and "discredited" are two separate concepts. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Also:

1. holocaust denial has been studied since the end of WW2, quite extensively and academically, so of course the WP:RS coverage is different.
2. likewise, there are not "holocaust denial clubs" or groups whose primary purpose is holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is folded in as PART of other ideologies (such as neo-naziism, Christian Identity/Identitarian movement/Creativity (religion)) and so forth. QAnon is an active movement, with adherents who primarily identify themselves as "Q followers" or "Q supporters" or "Q believers", with active tenets telling them to prepare for participation in violent confrontation and insurrection.

The coverage in wikipedia is different because the WP:RS coverage of the topics is different. WP:OTHERSTUFF remains an invalid argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

And? "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." [4]. Main arguement I see put forth is that QAnon is an ongoing threat that requires us to get involved, which is not what wiki is for. It is an absurd conspiracy theory and should be treated like all others. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"disproven and discredited" is awkwardly wordy, and, on top of that, the word "discredited" implies that the theory had credibility to start with. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

---

As a social psychologist by theoretical orientation and education, this talk page is fascinating as heck. Documenting and providing information (in an encyclopedia format) on an insane, ongoing internet cult is clearly incredibly difficult, tediously time consuming, and seemingly innately pedantic.

That said, I applaud all those who are working on this as I think its important to document its ongoing state, evolution, and convolutions. The ideas and beliefs of the movement are crazy nonsense, but the movement itself is real. That is a difficult tightrope to walk. Again, hats off to those who volunteer to do this work. Genuinely impressive testament to, at the very least, intellectual honesty, the scientific method, and rationality. I think this talk page is a demonstration that the rules and norms of Wikipedia work, and is a testament to Wikipedia’s importance as THE encyclopedia of the 21’st century. - SM

.

---

Hoax

Instead of "disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory", how about "far-right hoax"? The word hoax is much more concise than "disproven and discredited conspiracy theory", and has been used to describe QAnon in many reliable sources, including the academic source "Breaking the Spin Cycle: Teaching Complexity in the Age of Fake News" (published by Johns Hopkins University Press; preprint available with identical wording as the published version for the relevant part). Reliable news sources that describe QAnon as a hoax include Global News, NPR (RSP entry), NBC News (RSP entry), and PolitiFact (RSP entry). This article is already categorized into Category:2010s hoaxes, Category:2020s hoaxes, and Category:Hoaxes in the United States. — Newslinger talk 09:24, 21 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)

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)

ARG

(Note: I have broken this off into its own section, as it was not directly related to the previous section it was written in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC))

---

Financial Times is reporting that this was started as an Alternate Reality Game. I will add text in the lead paragraph based on RS.Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear @XOR'easter: I noticed that you reverted my edit because one of the sources was Medium. However, I used 3 sources; 2 of which were the Financial Times. Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

While there is interesting speculation that QAnon resembles an ARG, there is not enough there to call it such, especially straight into the lead of the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I found RS that now say it is a ARGalternative reality game such as the Financail Times, also I found a S, called Medium, which another editor said is not RS, that names the acutual person who statrted the ARG. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That is why I am on the talk page trying to have a talk about adding it. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't view the Financial Times link as it's paywalled, but the title sounds more like they're claiming "Q" used the ARG format in order to push a narrative, not that it was an actual game. That's an important distinction. Regardless, that would not be something to put in the lead, but it would possibly fit elsewhere in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The U Chicago article as well states that QAnon uses ARG-like elements, but does not go so far as to call it an ARG.

Psychology Today comes the closest, stating:

QAnon is part conspiracy theory, part religious/political cult, and part alternate-reality role-playing game.

I could see that potentially being worked into a section of the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think this belongs in the lead, and I think this is overstating most of the sources (which compare it to an ARG; few of them - especially the higher-quality ones - actually state that it is or was one.) It is worth mentioning the comparison to ARGs somewhere in the article, but not in the lead, and definitely not in the first few sentences; and even when it's mentioned, I would definitely stay away from the more dramatic claims in the Medium post unless we can find better sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

What about the 2nd ref? It should not be behind a pay wall. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Market Watch is reporting that Aubrey Cottle views QANON as an "out-of-control ARG". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldshields11 (talk • contribs) 16:26, January 18, 2021 (UTC)

What about the 2nd ref?

I can't watch the video at work, but a search through the transcript doesn't show any results for ARG, and I can't read through it in detail right now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear @HandThatFeeds: Here is a cut and past from the Financial Times film transcript:

"A YouTuber called defango has since claimed the work was his. He says he created Q as an alternative reality game, mostly for the LOLs, but also to spoke out bad journalists in the alternative media space. But he also says that in 2018, a man called Thomas Schoenberger wrested control of the game from him. And in a nod to Operation Mindfuck, defango says he too is no longer sure if he ever controlled the game at all"

Then further into the transcript:

"In 2016, there was FBI Anon, and CIA Anon, Meganon, and all of these different LARPs that were basically practicing, there were prototyping what QAnon is."

Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That random YouTuber's claim that they created Q is not reliable. So I wouldn't quote this article for that.

The second quote you provide just shows that there were other "Anons" out there at the time pretending to be officials. That does not translate into an ARG. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think HandThatFeeds and Aquillion above basically have it right. The comparison is the sort of thing we could in principle write about, but it's not lede material, and claims by random people about inventing the whole thing are hardly noteworthy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

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?

Q relies on 8kun to make posts

I think this is well attested enough for the lead now.

• Wong, Julia Carrie (2021-01-20). "QAnon's 'Great Awakening' failed to materialize. What's next could be worse". The Guardian. Retrieved 2020-01-21. Watkins is the son of Jim Watkins, the owner of the message boards that Q relied on to make anonymous posts, 8chan and 8kun.
• Roose, Kevin (2021-01-17). "What Is QAnon, the Viral Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theory?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2021-01-21. Q's posts originally appeared on 4chan. Then they moved to 8chan, where they stayed until that site was taken offline last year after the El Paso mass shooting. They now live on 8kun, a site run by the former owner of 8chan. Each of these sites uses a system of identity verification known as a "tripcode" — essentially, a username that proves that a series of anonymous posts were written by the same person or people.
• Vicens, AJ; Breland, Ali (2020-10-29). "QAnon Is Supposed to Be All About Protecting Kids. Its Primary Enabler Appears to Have Hosted Child Porn Domains. [emphasis added]". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2021-01-21.

Many more sources exist.

The fact that the lead only mentions 4chan is in my view an error and puts too much emphasis on the past. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support this addition to the lead. I was actually surprised yesterday when working on a related article to see that it was not mentioned in the lead here. 8chan is also described as the "home" of QAnon by The Daily Beast and Wired. I don't think the current mention in the lead (Followers had also migrated to dedicated message boards such as EndChan and 8chan (now rebranded as "8kun"), where they organized to wage information warfare in an attempt to influence the 2020 United States presidential election.) accurately reflects the role 8chan plays. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm good with updating this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

After Pres. Trump left, QAnon is disappointed

Jan. 20, 2021 Associated Press

    QAnon: The inauguration has sown a mixture of anger, confusion and disappointment among believers in the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory. On social media, Trump's departure from the White House prompted a crisis of faith among QAnon supporters. Many believed that Trump would be orchestrating mass arrests, military tribunals and executions of his Satan-worshipping, child-sacrificing enemies https://apnews.com/article/biden-inauguration-qanon-79dd03a6dc497d6157304f8045f12cef

And a lot more interesting info that might be useful for updating the Wiki article.

And another article, from Reuters News agency: No plan, no Q, nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

QAnon followers reel as Biden inaugurated “The whole movement is called into question now.” and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

QAnon in crisis as day of reckoning fails to materialize — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Stylometry in lede?

I noticed the statement in the lede that A stylometric analysis of Q posts claims to have uncovered that at least two people wrote as "Q" in different periods. This seems an accurate summary of the given sources [5][6], but is it too much detail for the introductory paragraphs? The section about the identity of "Q" only gives that stylometric analysis a single sentence, with much less detail than the paragraph on the Watkinses. Also, the line about stylometry is perhaps redundant with the previous statement, it is now more likely that "Q" has become a group of people acting under the same name. Maybe the Watkinses should be in the lede instead of stylometry? XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

There is now quite an abundance of reporting on one or both of the Watkinses' connections to Q, as I noticed when writing Ron Watkins last night. It's quite a bit more than there was when I was working on Jim Watkins (businessman) last fall. I would've probably opposed adding Watkins to the lead back then, but I could probably be convinced to add the speculation about their connections to Q based on the sourcing available today (which can probably be improved in that section, actually). I have no strong opinion on whether stylometry ought to be mentioned or not, but your observation about its outsized weight in comparison to its weight in the article seems accurate to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)