Talk:QAnon

Movement?

I will no longer contribute financially to Wikipedia until the biased nature of this reporting has the stigmatism of "conspiracy theory" removed from the Q movement. The use of this term is clearly a hypocritical one and needs serious consideration by all Wikipedia readers. A "theory" is something that does not exist. Conspiracies take place every day. Calling Q followers "conspiracy theorists" is like saying anyone who follows the #METOO or #WOMENSRIGHTS or any other positively motivated movement is nothing but conspiracy theorists. Remove your opined inclusion of this false term or forever be labeled what many, many people have exclaimed before... that Wikipedia is not a trusted source for information. Questions? emailbullock@gmail. 107.139.73.142 (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

conspiracy theory is not an incorrect term until such time that it's proven true. once a conspiracy "theory" is proven, then it becomes a conspiracy. 9/11 was a conspiracy by extremists. the term "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation but in my view it should not necessarily be. PumpkinGoo (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2019 (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)

CONCERN: I believe the 24% statistic cited from the Washington Post poll is incorrect. The 24 from the poll is a temperature metric indicating negative sentiment. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/30/the-qanon-conspiracy-movement-is-very-unpopular-our-new-poll-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b15592a1956e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.67.165 (talk) 10:51, 27 December 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)

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)

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)

why does it matter what buzzfeed thinks? the only thing matters is what is their claim based on. as long as there isnt any hard evidence to base their claim or counter-claim on, their opinion should be disregarded in my view.PumpkinGoo (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2019 (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)

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)

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)

far right?

Is it really a "far right" conspiracy theory? The only source we have is splcenter and I highly doubt that's a neutral source. Also, if 50% of floridians heard of QAnon and 25% support it, is wikipedia saying that 25% of floridians are "far right"? Something does not add up. i think there is a tendency to smear political opponents as "far right" and that's fine, just not on wikipedia. i think it should be changed to "ring wing" or something like that because it's not just some fringe group of people who accept it. PumpkinGoo (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually yes, it is just a fringe group of people who accept it. If 25% of Floridians denied climate change, Wikipedia would still say climate change is a fact. Facts aren't popularity contests. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't address the assertion that the article makes in the very lede, that QAnon is a "far right" conspiracy theory. Is there any evidence that it's even a "right wing" conspiracy theory?? 68.113.225.4 (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The evidence is in the reliable sources cited in the article. Wikipedia summarizes such sources. If you are aware of reliable sources that report that QAnon is neither far right nor right wing, then provide links to those sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

As long as reliable sources say it is far-right (and a quick google search verifies that they do [7][8][9][10]), then Wikipedia should as well. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think citing the links you've provided as RS is dubious, at best, but that's not really my ax to grind. Certainly they are not peer-reviewed. 68.113.225.4 (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Citing The New York Times and Washington Post as RS is not "dubious". Their reliability has been discussed and assessed, and the Wikipedia community agreed that they are reliable for most cases. As it stands, no RSes have been presented that contradict the far right label. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: On this this topic they're not reliable. --01:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"Southern Poverty Law Center" is neutral? Really? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC) 24% Floridians surely not "far right". --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not "neutrality" we're looking for, it's reliability. See [{WP:Reliable sources]] and search WP:RSN for "SPLC". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The idea that this cannot be a far-right conspiracy theory because a significant % of Floridians believe in it is utter tosh, I'm afraid. And why yes, the SPLC is considered a reliable source on the whole. Ironically, both black and white supremacists and ideologues go after the SPLC. Jeez, I wonder why?--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a terrible argument. What is a good argument however is the fact that the FBI removed the SPLC as a valid source for defining extremism due to their own heavily skewed extreme biases. If that's good enough for the FBI it should be good enough for Wikipedia as well.Jfraatz (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I tried to clean up misinterpretations of poll results, saying now 58% of Floridians are familiar enough with QAnon to have an opinion about it, among whom gave a poor average rating of only 24 (range 0 to 100) of the conspiracy theory. Here is an article on FoxNews.com; saying they are members of the fringe, right-wing group QAnon which believes in massive conspiracies. StrayBolt (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Q-anon originally inspired by followers of Gary Spivey (human Q-tip hair) the faith healer

I found this article not to be definitive enough about the beliefs of this group, so I will attempt to clarify it:

The deepest held beliefs of Q-anon are simply, in a quote paraphrasing the late Isaac Asimov:

"My ignorance is better than your knowledge."

It is an anti-intellectual movement that is anti-science, anti-global warming, pro-home religious schooling, and prone to promulgate almost any political conspiracy theory they see as furthering this agenda or otherwise disruptive of an educational system that teaches much of anything useful to society. As the above quote would indicate, in areas other than fundamentalist or extremist religion, the followers of Q-anon are stupid to a fault, and like other religious fundamentalist causes, view mobile communications technology and associated with social networking and propaganda dissemination as a means to an end ordained by their God.

Fundamentalist religious organizations like Q-anon believe that the science that gave humanity the miracle of flight or the engineering skills to build skyscrapers so that planes carrying innocent passengers could be flown into the side of tall buildings that are not houses of worship. The Q-anon movement should be considered armed and dangerous for exactly this reason.

Recently the Q-anon movement has been pro-Trump, but one should not expect that it will remain politically aligned with anyone who has shown any indication that they will listen or align themselves politically for reasons not related to the interests of fundamentalist religion in the Bible Belt of the United States. Danshawen (talk)danshawen —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Danshawen: Wikipedia only cites, summarizes, and paraphrases professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without commentary, nor addition, nor original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we get that website added to the Wikipedia spam blacklist?

Don't want to list the page to give it any extra attention, but if you check the history you'll see IP addresses and throwaway accounts trying to add the page. To avoid having to semiprotect the page just over that, perhaps an admin can add the site to the global spam blacklist? Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gatemansgc: I listed it at the spam project, which seems the right approach. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Gatemansgc: Added. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thank you! Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 22:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2019

Change: a presumably American[8] individual that may have later grown to include multiple individuals, To: an alleged American individual, that may have later joined forces with other individuals, all claiming... AlphaWren (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

We don't know who this is, but this person or people uses the phrase "My fellow Americans". Nobody else is alleging that they are American, they are implying it, and sources are presuming it for lack of an alternative.

What added clarity is "joined forces" intended to provide? Grayfell (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"Falsely Accused" and "Widely Characterized"

In the second paragraph, it says, "The conspiracy theory, mainly popularized by supporters of President Trump under the names The Storm and The Great Awakening, has been widely characterized as...", given how close the election was, can we give a little more credit to the number of supporters President Trump has? Granted, Trump's base is not known to be as actively involved in the majority of mainstream news sources as Trump's detractors, but Trump's base is by no means small, and the tone of this article makes it seem as though the people paying attention to QAnon is a tiny minority of Americans. To fix this, I propose changing the sentence to say, "has been characterized as...", (removing the word "widely"), or to say "has been widely characterized by its detractors as...".

The above argument in mind... In the first paragraph, where it says, "The user has falsely accused numerous liberal Hollywood actors...", although there is a lack of evidence for the accusations, the accusations received no small amount of attention, and given that there hasn't been a formal investigation into the claims, shouldn't we remove the word "falsely" from that, since it presupposes a conclusion with which a significant number of people disagree?

Epistemologically, we have two groups here. One group thinks Q is legit, another doesn't. Both groups believe they are privy to sufficient evidence that they suppose their views are not refutable (as with nearly every argued point of view). Apparently, neither group is able to fully convince the other; so without that kind of closure, it's unfair to suppose that your "unsupported refutation" is any better than Q's "unsupported accusation". And, in general, it's not rational to out any claim, no matter how unlikely it seems, unless there is evidence against it. For example, there's lots of evidence supporting the current theories about origin of life and evolution, but it's still called a "theory" because it's not proven; and although the probability of life evolving to its current complexity on on earth within the geologically evident timeframe is quite low, nobody's putting "false" in front of claims on Darwin's wiki. Without getting too sidetracked, what I'm saying is, if a sufficient number of people hold to an opinion, that opinion should be treated as potentially credible unless objectively proven otherwise, regardless of the weight of probability against it. 63.255.126.132 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

1 - We are not here to bolster the numbers of Trump's supporters. QAnon believers are a tiny proportion of the population, the vast majority of people don't even know about it.

2 - There is zero evidence to support the QAnon allegations. They are clearly false, as they have no basis in reality.

3 - "Evolution is just a theory" is a tired misunderstanding of the term theory as used by scientists. A scientific theory is heavily supported by evidence.

There's no "significant" number of QAnon supporters, and the entire concept is not credible. It's a made up 4chan joke to see how many people they could get to believe it. So you're stuck in the unenviable position of either being a sucker, or someone trying to keep the joke alive. Either way, it's not going to get any traction here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected page

A protected page? So we can't correct what's wrong. We're all finding out that this "conspiracy theories" are true. Let's open the page for correction. Palatable (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

None of the conspiracy theories promoted by QAnon have been shown true. This page is currently protected due to vandalism. If you have a suggestion for improving the page, make it here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Reference section

The reference section has an empty 'Citations' subheading, then all of the citations appear under the 'Tweets' subheading. JezGrove (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads-up. I've made some changes to the layout; tell me if they work? —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Javert2113 - looks fine now. Best wishes, JezGrove (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

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)