Talk:QAnon

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)

StrayBolt, you can't trust the French. They don't even have a word for entrepreneur. Guy (help!) 09:04, 8 June 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)

The provision of "obvious source material" being required is ridiculous - and that is not an emotional response but a calm observation of the issue. Qanon is not only a substantially demonstrative platform for Trump followers who elected him because he promised to expose the swamp - also known as the deep state - but it is also a platform for those who are not Trump supporters to uncover and learn of what as become a clear, demonstrative undermining of individual liberties and the rule of law.

For Wikipedia to state that there is no proof of a conspiracy is nothing more than confirmation bias. What do you think that has been going on in the Federal Court system over the past several years that would never have been uncovered if it were not for Judicial Watch lawsuits? Anyone in possession of their faculties can see that there has been a conspiracy by a group of people operating in secret to deny US citizens of their individual liberties. Hiding Bengazi, Clinton eMail servers, the MSM Bias to destroy the Trump presidency, obvious criminal set ups by the FBI, one of which is the recent charges against General Flynn, and more. Thank God I did not support WikiPedia when they were asking for money. You can bet that I will lobby heavily against anyone to support them in the future.

One other thing I'd like to mention. WikiPedia has NEVER been considered a valid or reliable source of information. That reason alone is enough to remove it from Youtube - another entity that is censoring free speech. WikiPedia is, has been observed, a very biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:98A0:E870:911D:E1C1:FA97:78B8 (talk) 09:40, 8 May 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

change far right to heavily liberaterian ABruhRandomUser (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done QAnon fans would be pretty happy if Trump was an autocrat. Some of the ones who are more fond of misinterpreting the Bible as hard as possible actually want him to be the next Cyrus the Great, some even knowing full well that Isaiah called Cyrus a (lowercase) messiah. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The "Eduardo Moreno Derails Train" section

Although the incident has all the earmarks of a QAnon follower, are there any sources that actually mention QAnon in connection with Moreno or the incident? All I could find was Gizmodo saying "(However, one could reasonably hazard a guess that it involves QAnon.)", which doesn't seem sufficient to include it in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point. Although I recall seeing speculation about his ties to QAnon at the time, I don't think we ever got a statement directly tying him to the group. It should probably be removed until a source is found. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Vaccines

There's some debate over whether or not this article should be included in Category:Vaccine hesitancy. It was added by Rushwrj13 with the summary Considering 100% of the believers in this are also anti-vax, This belongs here. Do not revert this edit and say that there is "no evidence" for this. Look on any YouTube or Facebook comment section. This utterly fails WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR, even if I think it's correct. It was removed by Schazjmd and then restored by Beyond_My_Ken.

While I do assume that the article would be included in that category if this article was in an ideal state of completion, the article currently does not mention vaccines in any way. So, while Rushwrj13 abd BMK may be right overall, Schazjmd is right on policy. That said, the simple remedy would be to summarize and cite a source about how they're scared of a Coronavirus vaccine and have said they wouldn't take it. I vaguely recall seeing such a source floating about before I got my morning caffeine but I have to go to work so I can't re-find and add it right now -- I just know that it should exist. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

Suggest editing the "100% of qanon followers are anti-vax comment, we aren't all anti-vax, polio etc. Influenza on the other hand considering its a new strain each season seems useless getting a vax for last years strain. 2600:1000:B120:C140:4135:CAD4:3BC3:AFA0 (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2020 (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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 03:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

They are apparently asking for this edit summary] to be redacted, something that can't be done by ordinary editors. I don't think it qualifies for WP:Rev-del either, but thats's an admin question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

As an admin, I'm gonna say hell naw to a revdel. QAnon followers are even more wrong than the general antivax crowd (which is in no way support for their insanity, either). Ian.thomson (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

+ an inanely high number. O3000 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How can i change the "conspiracy theory" part?

This is absurd. Somebody needs to change this. We are a movement and a theory can be disproven with evidence and we have evidence. This is bias. River Garza (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done You would need reliable sources which say there is even an iota of validity to any of this. You're welcome to present those reliable sources here. As a new user, you may wish to review Wikipedia's foundational principles, notably the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guidelines. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia has a de facto mainstream bias, because Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Reliable sources describe QAnon as a conspiracy theory for various reasons, and Wikipedia must reflect that. Reliable (and independent) sources to the contrary would be necessary for any change to be made. We are not interested in sources proving or disproving the conspiracy itself, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research. We are interested in how sources describe QAnon specifically. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Plot by or against "deep state"?

Hello,

The first paragraph states that QAnon details "a supposed secret plot by an alleged deep state against U.S. President Donald Trump and his supporters".

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't it the other way around? From what I can gather, QAnon followers believe in an all-powerful, Satan-worshipping, global deep state engaged in international child trafficking, and that President Trump is working to bring their crimes to an end. I can imagine that some adherents also believe in a secret plot against POTUS, but surely that cannot qualify as the crux of the theory (and mind you, this definition makes up line 1 and 2 of the entire article).

Wouldn't it be more accurate to define the core QAnon belief as "a supposed secret plot by U.S. President Donald Trump against an alleged deep state"? Edelsheim (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This might be a subtle point, but the deep state plot is supposed to be the secret one. Trump's brave counter-attack is public. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020

'Far-Right' needs to be changed to 'Right Wing' in the initial paragraph as it more closely associated to the Republican side of the spectrum and against the socialism ideology., The use of the 'Far-Right' terminology is derogatory as it is associated to hate groups which QAnon is not. The research done by the group is open source and publicly available. DavidBTripp (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not original research. In other words, it is up to reliable sources to decide these things, not individual editors attempting to interpret 8chan posts. Since reliable sources say QAnon is far right, so will Wikipedia. That the far-right is often associated with hate groups doesn't, necessarily, mean that all far-right groups are hate groups. It also doesn't mean that QAnon is a hate group, nor does it mean that QAnon isn't a hate group. It means what it means. Grayfell (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory is a bad term...

The term "Conspiracy Theory" is really a bad term. A "Theory" in science, at least must have observational or experimental evidence. I really prefer the term "Conspiracy Fantasy" where that's not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfoxmich (talk • contribs) 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

What part of the buffalo do we get the wings from? Conspiracy theory is a joint word, it is not merely a theory about a conspiracy. That said, I'd be happier if we just referred to it as "delusional moonbatshit." Ian.thomson (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Works for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The Germans solve this by combining the words: verschwörungstheorie. But, delusional moonbatshit is easier to pronounce. O3000 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, WP:BOLLOCKS covers this I think Guy (help!) 14:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a colloquialism. Trying to change it now is like closing the barn doors after the cattle have already run away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's about the difference between the meaning of "theory" in science, and the meaning of "theory" in everyday English, which is why you get people going around saying that evolution by natural selection is "just a theory", and thinking that they've successfully debunked it by doing so. And BTW, Rfoxmich, believers in conspiracy theories cite a lot of "evidence" to support them, it's just the "evidence" is false, or wrongly construed, or misunderstood, or unproven, or disproved, or correlation but not causation, or otherwise not dispositive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't you mean that it's like shutting the barn door after you've taught the man to fish? Acroterion (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this is off-topic here. We can discuss whether the term "conspiracy theory" has been applied to this subject by sufficient reliable sources to justify our use of the term in the article but discussion of the term itself is not relevant to improving this article. Even on talk page of the conspiracy theory article it would fall foul of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOTFORUM and hence get short shrift. Essentially, this is the accepted name given to such nonsense and there is no point in arguing with the dictionary even if some of us might dislike the coinage of the term. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Add the site in External links

qmap.pub I mean this is just crazy not to have it here. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:4CBF:92CD:9B88:F7AB (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done "This is just crazy" is not a valid reason for inclusion. Please elaborate beyond your personal opinion. See also WP:BURDEN. Edelsheim (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

COI WP:ER

Several reliable sources have weighed in on my, and others', contention that QAnon's identity is likely to be known by Jim Watkins, 8chan's owner, or his son Ron Watkins, 8chan's administrator. More weight should be given to our theory about QAnon's identity.

• Farley, Donovan (2020-05-17). "The True Threat". Playboy. Retrieved 2020-06-01.

“The most important change in mind-set was that I came to believe Jim and Ron do not operate 8chan in good faith but rather to twisted ends,” he says. “Their actions continue to betray them—for example, helping QAnon post and making sure QAnon’s identity would remain stable during the transition from 8chan to 8kun, which they did for no one else.” Ron Watkins, whose father is suing Brennan for libel over remarks he tweeted last year, addressed these claims via Twitter DM: “Fred is currently fighting a criminal libel case, so I can’t recommend him as a good source of information.” Pressed about possible connections to Q, Ron said, “Nobody from our team has had private contact with Q.”

Also I believe relevant in this source:

When Jim was called before Congress after the El Paso shooting (he wore a QAnon pin affixed to his collar)

• LaFrance, Adrienne (2020-06-01). "The Prophecies of Q". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2020-06-01.

Watkins Xerxes, he frequently sings hymns, reads verses from the Bible, praises Trump, and touches on themes underlying QAnon—warning against the deep state and reminding his audience members that they are now “the actual reporting mechanism of the news.” He also shows off his fountain-pen collection and practices yoga. When he arrived on Capitol Hill, in September 2019, Watkins wore a bulbous silver Q pinned to his collar. His testimony was behind closed doors. In November, 8chan flickered back to life as 8kun. It was sporadically accessible, limping along through a series of cyberattacks. It received assistance from a Russian hosting service that is typically associated with spreading malware. When Q reappeared on 8kun, he used the same tripcode that he had used on 8chan. He posted other hints meant to verify the continuity of his identity, including an image of a notebook and a pen that had appeared in earlier posts.

Fredrick Brennan’s theory is that Jim and his son Ron, who is the site’s administrator, knew 8kun needed Q to attract users. “I definitely, definitely, 100 percent believe that Q either knows Jim or Ron Watkins, or was hired by Jim or Ron Watkins,” Brennan told me. Jim and Ron have both denied knowing Q’s identity. “I don’t know who Q is,” Ron told me in a direct message on Twitter.

I'm not the only subject matter expert to believe this:

• Levinson, Charles (2020-03-03). "With super PAC, QAnon's con chases mainstream — and money". Protocol. Retrieved 2020-06-01.

For seasoned QAnon watchers, perhaps the biggest significance behind the unveiling of the PAC is that it seems to cement the connection between Watkins, 8Chan's owner, and the Q poster himself. It's been one of the most hotly discussed and debated questions within the world of Q researchers, Q watchers and Q debunkers.

"Watkins always made it seem like there was distance between him and Q, that Q was just this guy posting on his forums, that he let Q post because he's a free speech absolutist. By launching this PAC he is fully admitting that he is working with whoever is posting as Q and he is now part of the grift that is QAnon," said Mike Rains, a QAnon researcher who is behind the Poker and Politics Twitter feed, which follows the Qanon movement and debunks many of its claims.

• Gilbert, David (2020-03-02). "QAnon Now Has Its Very Own Super PAC". Vice. Retrieved 2020-06-01.

When 8chan went offline last August due to hosting providers pulling support for the site, QAnon supporters were cut adrift. However, when 8chan reemerged in November — renamed 8kun — “Q” quickly reappeared, which led some to question how closely linked Watkins was to the conspiracy theory.

Given the strength of the sources, this theory ought to receive at least two sentences in the identity section.

I'd write it like this:

As QAnon relies on a tripcode to verify themselves, and the tripcode is verified by 8chan's server and not reproducible on other imageboards, QAnon was not able to post when the website went down following the El Paso shooting. This apparent conflict of interest, combined with statements by 8chan's founder Fredrick Brennan, Jim Watkins' use of a "Q" collar pin, and Watkins' financial interest in a QAnon super PAC have led to widespread speculation that either Jim Watkins or his son, 8chan's administrator Ron Watkins, knows the identity of QAnon; though they deny this.

References

Perhaps GRuban is interested in taking a swing at it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not touching this with a ten foot pole. I hereby disclaim all and any knowledge of anything QAnon, and will work hard to scrub my brain of what little I have just learned. The levels of rumor and conspiracy in the suggestions here are just too deeply nested for my humble brain to comprehend. ("They're just rumors!" "But they're rumors published in reliable sources!" "We can't publish rumors about living people!" "But the whole article is about rumors about living people, just like this!") I'll be sitting back and watching the fireworks while sipping Mai Tais with the Grey Aliens and the clone of Elvis. (Mai Tai's are a key part of the clone of Elvis's new diet.) --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say no on this. The proposed wording is WP:SYNTH, and the sources are entirely speculation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: The problem with this argument is that I'm not proposing a new section. We already have a § Identity of "Q"...which literally begins with there has been much speculation regarding the motive and the identity of the poster, and then lists the "range" of the theories. So, here's another theory. I don't understand why my pet speculative theory has less legitimacy being in the article than Wu Ming's or the idea that it's similar to Cicada 3301? I actually am going to see if Mr. Rothschild will consider adding it to the Daily Dot source, (we follow each other on Twitter, and I've also written for Layer 8,) as the source does state Editor’s note: This article is regularly updated for relevance. and much has changed since it was first published in 2018, as the Watkins hijack theory only makes sense post-8kun rebrand. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Sorry to double post, one more comment. Regarding WP:SYNTH, I was only attempting brevity. I'm happy to write it a different way, or cut out some sources and stick to three major ones, that is to say, Glaser (2019), LaFrance (2020) and Levinson (2020). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Attempt №2

Rothschild told me they'd see if their editor was interested. In the mean time...:

As QAnon relies on a tripcode to verify themselves, and the tripcode is verified by 8chan's server and not reproducible on other imageboards, QAnon was not able to post when the website went down following the El Paso shooting. This apparent conflict of interest, combined with statements by 8chan's founder Fredrick Brennan, Jim Watkins' use of a "Q" collar pin, and Watkins' financial interest in a QAnon super PAC which advertises on 8chan have led to widespread speculation that either Watkins or his son, 8chan's administrator Ron Watkins, knows the identity of QAnon. Both deny knowing "Q"'s identity.

References

@HandThatFeeds: Thoughts? I've cleaned up the WP:SYNTH and stuck to the major sources. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Solid work! I see no further issues beyond what's already been fixed. Re: sources being well-sourced speculation, that's what § Identity of "Q" heavily relies on in the first place. Edelsheim (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Edelsheim: Thank you! I have three small suggestions to clarify the section so our mention of 4chan makes sense: (a) (suggested words in bold) Because 4chan is anonymous and does not allow registration by users, any number of individuals originally may have posted using the same handle. (b) The poster came to use a frequently changing tripcode to authenticate him- or herself on 8chan after migrating there as they feared 4chan had been "infiltrated". (c) Wikilink El Paso shooting. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

References

@Psiĥedelisto: My pleasure! Looks good to me, Y done Edelsheim (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

When I encountered this article, I see many contentious words such as “false” and “falsely”. I think this violates WP:NPOV. A reader should already know it is a conspiracy theory so using those words only adds bias. I propose removal of these words. Manabimasu (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Uh, no. It doesn't. It's not at all biased to call QAnon beliefs false. No reliable source backs them up. Every reliable source calls them false. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: If the words “false” and “falsely” were changed to “fringe” would that be acceptable unless the source uses those adjectives. The word claim, allegation, or belief alone without the adjective should be fine on its own. Manabimasu (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Manabimasu: Uh, no, it is not acceptable to change "false" to "fringe" in this instance. A fringe belief may very well be true, although it's unlikely to ever be found so. Einstein's theory of relativity was once a fringe belief, but is now mainstream science. A false belief will never be proven true. Belief in "Q" is a patently false belief, not a fringe belief. Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Manabimasu: Would you say that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is:
  -Debunked
  -Unproven
  -Debatable
  -Plausible
  -Proven?

QAnon is pretty much an elaboration of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Let's stick with "false" which has the advantage of being straightforward and accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: I obviously agree, but fringe SPAs at this and the Pizzagate CT article usually object to the Pizzagate CT article's phrasing "debunked." I've also been trying to merely ask WP:CPPers the question without argument that might influence their answer (see User_talk:Qtronicus for an example), as anyone who picks any of the choices I gave besides "debunked" (although new answers like "false" or "batshit" would also be good) generally needs a nothere CIR block. That said, it appears OP has wandered off. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks, I was unaware. ill know for the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Add information that Donald J Trump is Q+

Really, no information?? 2A00:1370:812C:ADF2:B131:DF:A9A7:7AD6 (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Got a WP:reliable source that says so? No? Then no information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

This info is incorrect and inaccurate. Comes across as far left propaganda trying to discredit a legit movement. 2601:280:4700:1277:F144:C5C5:5D8A:67E (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)