Talk:QAnon

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Bernabean, if you think those sources are illegitimate, you probably shouldn't be editing anything you've been editing, except maybe Talk:Short interest ratio. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Of course conspiracy theories can have a political agenda. QAnon is labeled a "far right conspiracy theory" throughout reliable sources.[1][2][3] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Point of order: cite 7 is actually five different citations under a single link for brevity (2-6). We have multiple reliable sources identifying QAnon as a far-right movement. Simply declaring citations as "illegitimate" is not sufficient to alter this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

What precisely is "far-right" about QAnon? If you actually read the articles cited for that attribution; 2. The SPLC does not say that QAnon is Far-Right, but rather that it is allegedly popular among the far-right, as based by their "Hate Tracker" (with a dead hyperlink). 3. The NBC Article is predominantly about how Far-Right personalities are denouncing QAnon, while claiming (without a source) that the far-right originally propped it up. 4-5. The Washington Post article makes only one reference to the Far-Right, claiming that QAnon has "animated the Far Right fringes if the Internet". Again, unsourced. The article itself is about a photograph taken with Vice President Pence. The Sun-Sentinel.com article is about this same photograph. 6. The Fortune Magazine Article is behind a paywall, and only notes QAnon as being "Far Right" in the title, with no supporting evidence - as was mentioned in the original comment.

While there are certainly a number of sources that make the claim, none of the five sources provided gives evidence to it, or even expound on why they reached that conclusion. Some of the articles, while from well known outlets, are quite clearly biased. Statements such as "QAnon, the collection of baseless conspiracy theories" and "QAnon is the stuff of parody" in the Washington Post article are hard to consider as objective information, especially without any sourcing to back up those assertions whatsoever.

My reading of the Wikipedia's rules for attribution lead me to believe that biased sources should use an in-text attribution rather than an in-line attribution. I think that as Bernabean stated, a "Right Wing" attribution is more solidly supported than "Far Right", or I could even go as far as an in-text attribution of its consideration as "Far-Right" by some parties. As things are, however, I don't see a good reason to label QAnon with such a highly charged term. Surely we should take a great degree of care in how we paint the subjects of our articles?

I will leave it alone for a few days, in order to allow for a reply. After that, I may edit it to say "Right Wing", and provide sources for that claim.

24.75.118.172 (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Theophrastus

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)

• Yeah, well, it's a bunch of news organizations, not just "sites". At some point we're not talking about opinions anymore. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.67.206 (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Which French word? Please be specific. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

My guess would be coup d'état. Perhaps we should use coup… no wait, that is still from the French. Maybe it was some other English term borrowed from French or via another language. Here is another List of English words of French origin. StrayBolt (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"Speak in French when you can’t think of the English for a thing." -- Lewis Carroll. O3000 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not know what "je ne sais quoi" means. Jonathunder (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove February 11th, 2020 Trump comment

Can we remove Trump's quote from the "Identity of Q" section? He was referring to the Anonymous New York Times author from 2018/

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/my-peter-trump-trade-advisor-peter-navarro-is-reportedly-hunting-anonymous/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.48.211 (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2020

Can we remove the line at the bottom of the 'Identity of Q' section? Trump was being asked about who the Anonymous New York Times author was, not about QAnon. https://twitter.com/johnrobertsFox/status/1227666863678803968

Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office on February 11, 2020, President Trump was asked if he knew who "anonymous" is. He replied, "I don’t want to say, but you’d be surprised."[55] BearFish56 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Done You're source is poor. But so is the source in that entry, and I can't find a good source. O3000 (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2020

"Q has falsely accused numerous liberal Hollywood actors, Democratic politicians, and high-ranking officials of engaging in an international child sex trafficking ring, "

Claims missing citation.

Making claims at the first-half of a complex sentence doesn't absolve the need for citation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed Mildsaucewiki (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be well sourced in the body. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please, clarify!

It says:

Harassment of Jim Acosta

At a Trump rally in Tampa, Florida on July 31, 2018, Trump supporters exhibited hostile behavior toward CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta. Exponents of QAnon-related theories were at the rally.[106]

First, you don't know that everyone who attended the rally was a Trump supporter. Some people could have been simple attendees.

Second, it should be "some", unless you're saying that every Trump supporter there exhibited hostile behavior.

Third -- and, most egregiously -- without any warrant, you connect the crowd's "hostile [according to whose judgment?] behavior" towards C. N. N.'s Acosta with "[e]xponents" of "QAnon-related [?] theories" who were also there. How do you classify, "QAnon-related"? How do you know QAnon-related theorists were there? Also, where is your evidence that such people also exhibited hostile behavior towards Acosta?

All of these points need, I think, clarification. If you can prove or source them -- fine. Otherwise, they look to me like bias.Mwidunn (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)mwidunn

Your objections are addressed by the citation itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia article beginning with "X is a far right etc...."

Not a general forum for discussion of the political spectrum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
EDIT - After responding to the replies my initial post received, it appears Wikipedia has deleted the entire conversation. Luckily, I saved it to a txt file because I suspected something like this would happen, so I'm posting the entire conversation here. This has to be about the 10th Wikipedia article I've looked at in the past few weeks beginning with "X is a far right etc..." This is a serious problem that apparently no one at Wikipedia seems concerned about. Left and Far-Left activists, media outlets and organizations are engaging the tactic of labeling anything and everything they disagree with 'Far-Right' and 'Alt-Right.' They have been doing this for the last few years. In case you need it spelling out for you, Wikipedia: LEFT AND FAR-LEFT WEBSITES THAT ENGAGE IN THIS TACTIC ARE NOT 'RELIABLE SOURCES' AND CERTAINLY NOT EVIDENCE OF YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT SOMETHING IS FAR-RIGHT. This has to be the most reckless form of it considering that the 'QANON HUB' site specifically states on its homepage that Q-anon is not partisan, is for everyone both Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, Liberal or Conservative who love America. So it would seem that it is Wikipedia's view that loving America is a Far-Right viewpoint. It's amazing that it's come to this. Can someone at Wikipedia give me an example of something that is moderately Right? Something that is Center-Right or moderately Right Wing? Because it seems that literally every article on things that even slightly Right of Center (and even Left of Center) are declared 'Far-Right' in the opening sentence. It literally makes no sense for this many 'Far-Right' people and organizations to exist because if they did Far-Right would be a mainstream view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Des22z (talk • contribs) Thank you for your opinion. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so if you have sources that indicate QAnon is not far-right in origin, please feel free to work them into the article. If you need help figuring out how to do that, let me know. However, judging by your contributions here and elsewhere, I think you need to re-align your left-right compass and understand what sorts of things are far right, Far left, and more moderate. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC) My political compass is just fine, thank you, and your response is just another example of Wikipedia's increasing attempts to push false narratives about what constitutes Far Left and Far Right. You know as well as I do that any sources I cite will be instantly removed - Wikipedia defines "reliable sources" as any source that pushes a Leftist narrative. I have witnessed this on countless articles - Alex Jones is described by Wikipedia as Far Right and know for a fact that is not the case because I have followed Alex Jones's 'work' for years - not because I like him, but because I despise him. He's a conspiracy theorist whackjob who would push all kinds of falsehoods and misinformation to make his theories seem more credible, and I followed his work specifically to debate with his fans and debunk his theories. And as much as I might hate the guy, the one thing he definitely is not is 'Far Right'. The notion that he is is actually absurd - half his conspiracy theories involve Nazis trying to take over the world, not exactly something I'd expect a Far Right person to worry about. He was considered Left Wing until he spoke out against Hillary Clinton, then all of a sudden you people started calling him Far Right which is what you people always do the moment anyone criticizes the Democrat candidate for President. I wouldn't mind so much if you just admitted it. It's the fact that you insist on this pathetic pretense of "neutrality" which is utterly laughable at this point that makes this so insufferable. I can't believe I once donated money to you people.Des22z (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I will agree with the OP to the extent that it is a total drag to see how many far-right organizations have become notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, though, that's real world problem, not a Wikipedia problem, one that I hope will abate in time. In the meantime, if reliable sources say that these groups are "far-right", then we'll continue to report that they are "far-right". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC) I'm not going to pretend you honestly believe what you wrote there. You know as well as I do that there has not been an explosion of far-right organizations in recent years. You know that the vast majority of these organizations being dubbed "far-right" by Wikipedia and Leftist media are not, in fact, far-right. You know perfectly well that this is a tactic to malign any critics of the Left, a tactic that you yourself are using. The Leftist tactic of falsely labeling enemies as "far-right" is what has exploded in recent years, and you know it. Fortunately, more and more people are getting wise to this tactic every day. The only sad thing is that by obsessively lying and falsely labeling innocent groups as "far-right" - when you know full well that they are not - you are causing people to let their guard down to the danger of real far-right groups and organizations like the so-called Alt-Right and people like David Duke. It's ironic that people like yourself, who pretend to care about the danger of far-right organizations as a pretense for maligning your enemies, are ultimately helping far-right groups and organizations.Des22z (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Actually, it is well documented that there has been a rather large increase in far-right organizations in recent years in many countries. O3000 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Can someone at Wikipedia give me an example of something that is moderately Right? Something that is Center-Right or moderately Right Wing? From a global perspective, the Democratic Party is Center-Right. So, there you go. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC) No, it isn't. The Democrat Party of America is no "center-right", not by a national definition or a global definition. I can't decide if that was just plain ignorance or an attempt at an insult. Nether would surprise me at this point. I would say that pundit George Will is moderately right, from an American perspective. The National Review. The Republican Party prior to around 1990 -- when it began its long tack farther and farther right -- used to be, from an American point of view, "center-right". It even had a "liberal" (read "moderate") wing populated by those such as Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits. (From the American political POV, not the global perspective that HTF cites, the Democratic Party at the time was "center-left", where they would still be today if the Republicans hadn't pushed the center of American politics so far to the right that even a moderately liberal policy espoused by Democrats looks like "socialism" to some.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "...looks like Socialism to some." would that be the policies espoused by Democrat candidates who openly declare themselves to be Socialists like Bernie Sanders and AOC? The fact there are Democrat candidates calling themselves Socialists yet you are somehow able to rationalize how it's the Republicans who are responsible for the perception of the Democrat Party becoming increasingly Socialist demonstrates how truly dishonest your agenda is better than I ever could. So you're trying to push the absurd narrative that it is the Republican Party who have pushed the center of American politics to the far-Right which is why the Democrat Party appears to be on the far-Left....that makes literally no sense whatsoever. No one Party controls the Center and no one Party can move the center, they can only move their own position on the spectrum - saying that one Party has "moved the center" makes literally no sense. The reality - that you're well aware of - is that the Democrat Party have moved to the far-Left with increasingly radical abandon. As such, people on the far-Left don't realize they're on the far-Left, they think they're still the moderate Left. When they look at the moderate-Left they think they're looking at the center, and when they look at the center they think they're looking at the moderate-Right. It's the Democrats that have become radical, not the Republicans, and you know it. But good look pushing that false narrative.Des22z (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Other "moderately right-wing" notables include David Brooks, Bret Stephens, Kevin D. Williamson, and David Frum, just off the top of my head. @Des22z: Typing in some variation of "is a center right" in the Wikipedia search bar returns lots of examples (e.g. [4] or [5]) Bennv3771 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC) And sooner or later those examples will be changed to "far-right" by Wikipedia. You people call Ben Shapiro "far-right" and he's about as moderate and "standard" right as you can get. Your pretense is embarrassing at this point. RS have called Shapiro extremely conservative. However, his article here does not call him far-right. Indeed, it says he is a target of criticism by the alt-right. O3000 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Qanon

Not a forum for your views on who constitutes a "leftist" and why they're so bad
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Protected article states that "numerous" Hollywood and Democrat party figures have been "falsely accused" of various vile actions. No matter how wild the allegations, one would have to have proof that the accused did not take part in the alleged acts in order to dismiss out of hand the accusations. That there is no evidence that someone did something does not prove they did not do it. "Accused without credible evidence" would be an accurate and logically defensible statement for the writer of the Qanon article to make. The standards for logical non-fiction article writing are not the same as the standards for criminal prosecution. MurMiles (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC) "A false accusation is a claim or allegation of wrongdoing that is untrue and/or otherwise unsupported by facts" StrayBolt (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC) "A false accusation is a claim or allegation of wrongdoing that is untrue and/or otherwise unsupported by facts" In that case every declaration that QANON, the Proud Boys and Alex Jones are "far-right" by Wikipedia constitutes a false accusation. Not a single one of the citations for those accusations on those pages refer to any facts, data or evidence, but instead a baseless assertion (lie) by a Leftist source or sources who are known to hate all three of those groups and individuals. I am not attempting to turn this into a forum or to violate any rules, and if I have done so I apologize, but it is absolutely absurd and incredibly inconsistent for anyone from Wikipedia to be pointing to definitions of "false accusations" and using that as an excuse to censor / not alter an article when Wikipedia itself supports countless false accusations when those false accusations are made by Leftists against the "correct" people and organizations (i.e anyone right of Stalin) and doesn't require Leftist sources to offer a scrap of evidence to support their baseless accusations of "far-right". To reiterate: this is not an attempt at violating rules or turning this into a forum debate, I am genuinely baffled by StrayBolt's answer given Wikipedia's clearly relaxed and accepting attitude towards false accusations made by Leftist sources against the above three groups/individuals - it seems like brazen hypocrisy - and I am genuinely asking for an explanation that will not only help me understand but also help others, including MurMiles. What am I saying - I know this will be deleted just like every other post drawing attention to Wikipedia's biased agenda... Des22z (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Isaac Kappy

Seems there should be a mention in the article about QAnon-supporting actor Isaac Kappy, who repeatedly harassed Seth Green and accused him and other individuals of pedophilia before committing suicide, with his death itself becoming the subject of conspiracy theories. See [6]. 2600:1014:B025:7EFA:CCBC:F540:6B77:138F (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Fascist

The policies QAnon believers embrace (mass arrests, martial law, internment camps, summary executions in some cases) would clearly amount to fascism if actually carried out. In addition they tend to embrace fascism-adjacent foreign leaders such as Vladimir Putin. Here is an example of a source linking the movement to fascism. 2600:1014:B01D:B988:25AE:B858:95D7:5AC5 (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

QAnon

This Wiki article is extremely biased... CJ WiKi 108 02:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ WiKi 108 (talk • contribs)

 Not done - Please explain specifically what you object to, and provide reliable sources which support your proposed changes. Otherwise, this thread will be closed as non-actionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Grass Valley Charter School fundraiser

This paragraph is very unclear, it is difficult to understand what actually happened in this incident. I assume the GVCSF in the tweet was not referring to the school, but this is not stated. There is no hint what the tweet was actually about. But most relevantly, there seems to be no connection with "Q" only to "Qanon supporters". Is this one example too many? Could the paragraph be just deleted? 4shires (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2020

"Q has has falsely accused" is biased and incorrect. Change to "accused". "Donald Trump feigned collusion with Russia and worked with Mueller"is absolutely incorrect. The ENTIRE history section including Origins, Background, and False claims is biased in its nature and factually incorrect. Analysis and Appeal and Disillusionment sections are propagandizing Wikipedia's take on a subject that should be described and explained in a neutral and objective manner. Instead, the authors take great care to color their interpretation of events in hindsight in order to sway potential readers of the misleading nature of the Qanon movement. This is paramount because of the fact the wikipedia entry is highlighted as if it were an ad on the bottom of all Q related Youtube videos. Unless this is changed, Wikipedia will be outed as propaganda by other more vigilant social media users than myself. Qtronicus (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)