Talk:QAnon

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.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

Alternative Views B‑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
B	This article has been rated as B-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 B‑class Low‑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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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.

Politics: American B‑class Low‑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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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 B‑class Low‑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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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 B‑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
B	This article has been rated as B-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.

QAnon received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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, when it received 18,766,515 views.

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.

Reporting of Q's drops.

I feel like this article doesn't nearly get enough into detail about Q's posts, how they changed over time, and how they were interpreted. While there is a section dedicated to general claims made by Q, and how they failed miserably, any details about the drops themselves are fairly scarce.

Seeing as these posts are central to the QAnon mythos, I think it's only appropriate that more direct coverage, and scrutiny be applied Q's posts. A section about the format of the drops, how they were distributed among the online ecosphere, and how they were interpreted by larger curators, perhaps?

--SgtShyGuy (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think QAnon#Conspiracy claims is sufficiently detailed.

If by "direct coverage", you mean a section which explains these patterns, the way to start would be to look at how reliable sources handle this. Perhaps start with a specific source and go from there. Reliable sources are also independent sources for this.

"Curators" are typically unreliable and primary, here, also. For a lot of reasons, we really, really should not include direct coverage of Q's posts without context. One of many problems is that these posts are not coherent or consistent, so these patterns are basically meaningless. Therefor, scrutiny requires context and actual expertise to be meaningful. To be clear, these patterns absolutely exist, but they cannot be used to imply any conclusions by themselves. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we do not just repeat lies and bullshit, we report analysis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removals

No mention that reddit removed several sub reddits that were very active in spreading the Q consiracy theories.

2603:8001:3846:2D00:3DFD:6A11:4CA5:A9B1 (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is already some discussion of subreddit removals in the article. If you feel there is something important left uncovered, you should look for a reliable source that covers it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Religious Movement?

Do you believe Qanon is a New Religious Movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybufffanatic2005 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do any RS say it is one?Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done a quick search and found these sources discussing the matter, which seem to be WP:RS for this: [1], [2], [3]. There's also a source from Christianity Today, which I think is appropriate as a reference in this context: [4], though I think it needs attribution if we used it in the article.

As for my personal opinion -- I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between what one person calls a cult and what another calls an NRM. A lot of NRM scholars have an aversion to the term cult, and it seems that practically anything that is called a cult by one group will be called a NRM by another. The use of religious imagery and cult-like tendencies of QAnon are mentioned in the article. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think then we can say "some have described it as..."Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although I'm not sure where the best place is for this information. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Reactions as this seems to fit that, how people are describing it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think then we can say "some have described it as..."

Nah, that falls afoul of WP:WEASEL.

Also, that link to The Conversation looks like an editorial/opinion piece, so I'm not sure we can use it.

The Open Democracy link calls it a "syncretic movement," and Christianity Today calls it an NRM. We could basically phrase it like that:

QAnon has been called a syncrectic movement and a new religious movement. with cites in appropriate places. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have added this, and the cult claims (which were made in the lede but not in the body of the article), to the "Reactions" section. –Bangalamania (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceased posting?

Should there be some note that post-Dec 2020 Q has not posted? [5]