Jump to content

Talk:QAnon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.128.67.206 (talk) at 21:39, 9 February 2020 (→‎No French please!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

'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'.

OP BLOCKED
If one cannot grasp that this conspiracy theory (which includes the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is false, they should not be editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and reliable sources describe it as a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Pperrin uk The first response to your initial edit here should have been adequate for you. soibangla (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Wikipedia is a place for facts, not opinions." Not true. We are required by Jimbo to document the "sum of all human knowledge"[1][2][3] 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)[reply]
BullRangifer: If you feel that opinions are necessary on Wikipedia, that is fine, but that means you must also be willing to include the opinions of those who hold to the QAnon conspiracy theory. Might I point out that some of the things in the article are not opinions, but outright lies, such as the claim that, ""The Storm" is an anticipated event in which thousands of people, members of the cabal, will be arrested, possibly sent to Guantanamo Bay prison or face military tribunals, and the U.S. military will brutally take over the country.[16] The result will be salvation and a utopia on earth." This is false. If this is true, you should cite an example of someone making this claim, and not Travis View, who clearly is not a believer in the QAnon conspiracy theory. If you can not provide a valid source for an example of this belief in real life, than it constitutes slander of the people you claim believe it. Electro blob (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. We have no obligation to repeat debunked fringe conspiracy nonsense of any political stripe. We merely state what reliable sources say about QAnon: that it's a concocted trollfest. Again, your personal disagreement with those sources is not relevant here. If you have reliable sources which say that there is anything real or true about anything in this conspiracy theory, please present them here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof, Please defend your assertion that that SPLC is a reliable source. This is not your article. Your comment is irrelevent since you have not provided a defense of this source. Electro blob (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:RSP. There has been extensive and repeated discussion and consensus is repeatedly established that the SPLC's published opinions about hate groups are reliable and relevant to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to provide a source to you, because according to your list, websites holding the opposite view are not reliable so long as they support conspiracy theories. For example, the Zero Hedge entry simply says that it is not reliable "due to its propagation of conspiracy theories." That is circular reasoning. A conspiracy theory can not be wrong because all the sites that support it support conspiracy theories, and are therefore unreliable. No one is obligated to use a "reliable" source by your standards, because your standards are inherently biased. The table says "As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source." and accepts it. Yet, the list also says "CECESNUR is an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest." Why is it that an advocacy group against far-right movements is reliable, but an advocacy group for religions is unreliable? How can a conspiracy theory be false because the source is a site that supports conspiracy theories? This list should not be taken seriously by any rational-minded person, even if it is the consensus. Wikipedia is by far the largest platform for public information in existence, and it should treat information fairly. This article should stop quoting hearsay about the QAnon conspiracy theory unless it can cite an example of the opinions that actually exists. Electro blob (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. ZeroHedge, an entirely-anonymous/pseudonymous blog, is not treated the same as The New York Times, a widely-respected print and online newsgathering and publishing company. If you disagree with that concept, you quite simply disagree with this site's foundational policy of basing articles on what is published in reliable sources. And if you disagree with this site's foundational policies, you are probably not going to have a good time here, because you will not be permitted to edit in a manner which rejects those policies. Wikipedia is not a free speech platform, it's a project to build a freely-available encyclopedia on the Internet. You're welcome to help build it, but in so doing you're required to help build it the right way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wales, Jimmy (August 2006), The birth of Wikipedia, TED Talks, retrieved December 5, 2015
  2. ^ Battles, Matthew (July 12, 2012), Wikipedia and the sum of human knowledge, metaLAB (at) Harvard, retrieved October 22, 2015
  3. ^ Jerney, John (October 22, 2002), "The Wikipedia: The encyclopedia for the rest of us", The Daily Yomiuri, retrieved October 22, 2015

    Quote: "In particular, the goal of the Wikipedia is to produce the best encyclopedia encapsulating the sum total of human knowledge.... [It] offers the possibility of everything being written into history, with all of mankind sharing knowledge and information in a way that enables everyone to profit from it." — Wikipedia:Testimonials

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernabean (talk • contribs) 12:42, January 11, 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

Change: ... has been characterized as "baseless",[17][18][19] "unhinged",[20] and "evidence-free".[21]

to

has been characterized as "baseless",[17][18][19] "unhinged",[20] and "evidence-free"[21] by news outlets.

[their voice should matter, but they are just opinions nonetheless and should hence be identified AS "someone" (news outlets).] 84.52.226.62 (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The facts vs myths

Probably I should just keep quiet, but this is a pet peeve of mine. First, I don't support QAnon or know anything much about it at all. I don't think for a moment that it's true, nor should we suggest that it is. But surely the "facts" that a wikipedia page should be reporting is that reliable sources SAY that X is a conspiracy theory, that they report that Y is baseless, unhinged, whatever - mot that "X is a conspiracy theory". Personal opinions aside, why is it Wikipedias job to make judgement calls and decide that something that many people beleive IS false? You could do the same to any religion; none are supported by evidence. You should report what the sources say, not give judgment on whether the sources are correct and which side is right. I'm not saying it should be given undue weight or whatever. You needn't include "the other side" from unreliable sources, for example. I just think it's not wikipedias place to chose the facts, merely to tell people what OTHER, reliable sources SAY is fact. By telling them "this is what the sources say". They can judge for themselves. This is basically what we do already, but when you write it as "X IS Y" people read it differently from "according to A, evidence shows X is Y" I've brought this up on other pages as well, don't know if has ever made the slightest difference. It feels to me like saying "Christianity is a myth and conspiracy theory, a baseless and evidence-free delusion", or something like that. Maybe that is what Wikipedia says. I don't know. You can certainly find plenty of sources that will say so, but why is it Wikipedia's job to make that call? The FACT is that many people say it's bunk, and that many people beleive it regardless. Anything more is either just putting their words onto Wikipedia as Truth or putting your own personal opinion, no matter how convinced you may be. This is not the same as pretending it's valid, it's just a matter of changing "it IS a conspiracy" to "an alleged conspiracy". Or whatever. Because as far as I'm concerned that's as far as wikipedia should go, on anything of this nature. That is all.


Idumea47b (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so the goal with this article is to present a summary of the topic. We do this by summarizing reliable sources. Pretty much everything any article says as a statement of fact should be supported by a reliable source (or at least supportable by sources, per WP:V). So if we said something like "QAnon is reported to be a conspiracy theory by reliable sources" instead of "QAnon is a conspiracy theory" we would be giving this conspiracy theory special treatment. Both versions are correct, but the longer one is using distancing language to imply that it's just an opinion (see WP:WEASEL). Even if it is an opinion, it's the only opinion Wikipedia has reliable sources for, so why bother casting doubt on it?
Another way to look at it is that this would be a subtle form of false balance. We are not trying to present "both sides" as being equivalent. We summarize what reliable sources say, and that's about all we do. The unreliable sources, the ones which say it isn't a conspiracy theory, do not get a seat at the table, because that's what "unreliable" means on Wikipedia.
The overwhelming majority of sources obviously don't say that "Christianity is a delusion", so this is a false comparison. QAnon is a fringe theory. Christianity is a mainstream belief. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No French please!

It is most annoying when a writer is trying to make a point and they use a FRENCH word while trying to communicate in English. Please, please, please keep your French to yourself and let us know what you are TRYING to say.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:QAnon&oldid=939982510"