Talk:QAnon

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2019

There seems to be much confusion either accidental or intentional when information pertaining to Qanon is concerned. On George W Bush’s Wiki page you will notice that the white supremacists who loved him for invading the Middle East aren’t listed each time they commits a crime against a Muslim. Unclefuzzydix (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2019 (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. Grayfell (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

'Conspiracy Theory' presupposes that QAnon is not genuine. Until it is proven one way or the other surely the most that can be said is that it is 'possibly a conspiracy theory'.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the section title says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pperrin uk (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and reliable sources describe it as a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying they 'reliably' know that Qanon is conspiracy theory? If so then a link to the proof should be included... if they are just considered 'generally reliable' sources that have described or claimed that Qanon as a conspiracy theory, then it is still just an unproven claim -- so it is misleading for it to be presented here as a fact. It should be qualified as 'believed to be...' or some such. Pperrin uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pperrin uk (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and reliable sources describe it as a conspiracy theory. We don't state that "reliable sources claim that the sky is often blue." Acroterion (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you accept the sky is blue because you trust someone who says so, or because someone has reliably shown that the visible light wavelength of 'blue' and the light wavelength of the sky are the same?... If QAnon turns out to be 'genuine' where would wikipedia stand on having called it a 'conspiracy theory'?... Wikipedia is now being uses as a 'primary source' -- maybe it should denounce those who use the 'wikipedia' name to claim authenticity and stop people using its articles in this way?Pperrin uk (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pperrin uk: All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. Wikipedia does not cite itself, so it doesn't matter if people misunderstand what Wikipedia is.

QAnon has been so contradictory and so disconnected from reality that I'm honestly ready to block you for gross incompetence for your advocacy of it. If you want your welcome to edit to continue, find a different topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, so, as Wikipedia just regurgitates other content, I guess you would be content for Wikipedia to disavow direct citations of its content? referring 'citers' to the original sources (if they consider them valid)? If you think I have advocated for qanon, you'd need to explain your reasoning... I have only challenged the use of the description 'conspiracy theory' for active, unresolved, issues.Pperrin uk (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Pperrin uk The first response to your initial edit here should have been adequate for you. soibangla (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pperrin uk: False balance between reality and something that is obviously wrong is not neutrality, it is no different than lying. Such false balance only enables those insane or stupid enough to have fallen for this bullshit, no one else. Final warning: if you do not stop asking us to create false balance here (or related topics, such as Pizzagate conspiracy theory), you will be shown the door. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a 'talk' page. Wikipedia have blocking for 'bad' editing of public articles, but I was not aware it had blocking to prevent discussion on talk pages. If you have no answer to what I am presenting, you are not obliged to respond at all.Pperrin uk (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian.thomson While I am discussing the principles of making claims that are then requoted elsewhere (so presenting wikipedia as a primary source), you seem more interested in the 'qanon' issue generally... the first thing on this page says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the QAnon article.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."... maybe you could reflect on this?Pperrin uk (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreliable Sources

Source 24 is to a self-identified opinion article. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not opinions. Likewise source 2 links to Southern Poverty Center, an expressly political organization which exists, as the main page of their website expressly states, to "battle racial and social injustice." https://www.splcenter.org/ They are not a reliable source just as a right-wing activist website would not be. Citation 10's headline "The Storm is the New Pizzagate - Only Worse" contains loaded language. It is clearly not objective. Likewise with source 13, "As QAnon Goes Mainstream, Trump's Rallies Are Turning Darker." Citation 23 links to a self-identified "perspective" article, there defined as "Discussion of News Politics with a point of view," i.e. an opinion article. Citing opinion blogs just because they are published by powerful organizations instead of individuals does not make them anything more than online opinion blogs. These citations should be removed.Electro blob (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is a place for facts, not opinions." Not true. We are required by Jimbo to document the "sum of all human knowledge" as it's found in reliable sources, and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage. That includes opinions, which we often attribute. NPOV expressly allows the use of biased sources, and editors are required by NPOV to not censor those sources. We are supposed to document the bias and attribute it properly.

I have written an essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is an accepted reliable source on this encyclopedia. Your personal disagreement with that conclusion is noted, but irrelevant. Same goes for the other cited sources here. That you don't like what those sources conclude about QAnon is uninteresting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

References

"Conspiracy theorist" not "conspiracy theory"

I think the article would be better off calling QAnon a "conspiracy theorist", albeit an unknown identity one, rather than a conspiracy theory, aka better English. Alex Jones is described as a conspiracy THEORIST, not theory. A person isn't a theory even if we don't know who they are. If I am missing something please let me know.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This is about the conspiracy theory generally known as "QAnon." Amusingly enough the person (or persons) who started it are now the least important aspect of the conspiracy mongering. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Far-right conspiracy theory" - How can a theory have a political agenda?

I don't see how QAnon is actually either far-right or a conspiracy theory, but I digress; if the general theory is that an individual and their supporters are being targeted, why does that make the theory itself have a political bias? It may happen to defend someone who is on the political right (Wikipedia doesn't say that Donald Trump is far-right.) but the source 7 (https://fortune.com/2018/08/01/qanon-conspiracy-trump-tampa-rally/) only uses the phrase "far right" in the title and contains no substantive evidence (let alone proof) of QAnon being far right. Source 8 (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/business/trump-social-media-summit.html) has NO mention of "far right", only "right wing". There is one brief mention of QAnon in this source, where it mentions how Donald Trump invited a QAnon promoter to the white house. Incorrect sources.

At the very least, 'far right' should be replaced with 'right wing' - but I think the political insertion here is neither neutral nor necessary. The sources given for 'far right' [7,8] are illegitimate.