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 100.12.196.193 (talk) at 22:18, 25 August 2020 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020: typo correction of previous entry). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This article isn't accurate or reflective of current views

What details do they agree about?

Generally they all believe that Donald Trump is fighting against a secretive and evil global cabal, members of which include former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the billionaire liberal philanthropist George Soros, TheDrOctagon (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. They totally agreed to stuff that later proved false, so they decided to ignore that and find new batshit.
Wikipedia doesn't use original research, it just summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

they are for trump not against him, this is miss information 82.11.10.78 (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article say they're against Trump? Schazjmd (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP seems to have misread the first sentence. Article seems fine to me. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post that didn't go at the bottom originally

"This apparent conflict of interest, combined with statements by 8chan's founder Fredrick Brennan, the use of a "Q" collar pin by 8chan owner Jim Watkins, 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 Q.[30][72] Both deny knowing "Q"'s identity.[30][73]" "Apparent", "widespread speculation" "Both deny" - This seems to exist merely as a writer's opinion based on observations. The opinion is denied, so why is this opinion here published? Both should be removed. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winklebean (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Winklebean: New stuff goes at the bottom. See those numbers at the end of the quote? Those are citations to reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TOC limit causing odd issue

Hi! I'm trying to add a Table of Contents limit (Template:TOC limit). However, whenever I do, it causes the Background and Pizzagate sections to not display content correctly, and I have no idea why. Does anyone get why this is happening? I think it would be good to limit the ToC so the long list of 'Incidents' don't appear individually. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian: QAnon Facebook groups are growing at a rapid pace around the world

I think it would be helpful to explain where conspiracy messages are spread as a section but also in the lede, this would include Facebook etc, there are a huge number of reliable sources explaining this, here is one just from today

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/11/qanon-facebook-groups-growing-conspiracy-theory

John Cummings (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2020

Although Q'anon is a conspiracy theory, it is not a far-right conspiracy theory. It is very scary that only "established editors" can change this page. Did they go to colleges like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton? I have a journalism degree from Central Michigan University. Thank you. Funkmastafrank (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been debated ad nauseam here, with reasons given for why it is a "far-right conspiracy theory". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to make ten edits to gain semi-protected access on Wikipedia, it's not run by some elite group who adhere to their own beliefs. Azaan Habib 19:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein & co?

I recently reverted an edit by CarlPhilippTrump.me because I didn't think the sourcing was strong enough for the lead. The claim was that the QAnon community spends a lot of time on Epstein, and the source says: "An active subsection of Q followers probes the Jeffrey Epstein case." Since this is the only sentence that touches on Epstein in the source, I reverted for due weight reasons.

However, the relationship between QAnon and the Epstein case seems potentially worth discussing based on sourcing that compares the two: [1][2].

Note, though, that this sourcing leaves unclear how exactly the Q community fits Epstein into their worldview. It seems like they don't really engage with it on its own terms, but rather just map Q beliefs onto it. Jlevi (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A mention in body, yes. In lead, nah. soibangla (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

This needs a header to state that it is an opinion piece. 154.115.159.122 (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You used the semi-protected edit request header instead. Wikipedia is not the place for you to express your opinions anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

This article, which holds the Google snippet, says QAnon is an anti-Trump conspiracy theory organization which is inaccurate. QAnon is pro-Trump. Please update "anti-Trump" to what the research shows, that it is pro-Trump. 70.105.242.100 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re confused regarding what the article says. Volunteer Marek 10:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Google graph currently says QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory detailing a supposed secret plot by an alleged "deep state" against U.S. President Donald Trump and his supporters.. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach

One line in the "False claims and beliefs" section reads "QAnon theorists have touted drinking bleach (known as MMS, or Miracle Mineral Solution) as a "miracle cure" for COVID-19.". While chlorine dioxide, known in pseudoscience circles as MMS, is an industrial bleaching agent, the phrasing implies that they advocate drinking household hypochlorite bleach, which is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.92.57 (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is misleading amd.should be corrected. Cubix1990 (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called MMS is an elaborate method of, yes, drinking chlorine dioxide or bleach, and they do advocate that. It stays. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead does not go far enough

I think a few more "false" and "disproven" need to be added to the lead section. It does not go far enough to state how truly discredited these theories are. Words such as "supposed" and "alleged" are simply not enough. We need more "falsely accused". Another example, it should be "Q also falsely claimed that Trump feigned collusion with Russians ... ". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've added a new sentence to the lead section that hopefully helps to address this. Taquim (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for Talk:QAnon

Given repeated attempts to re-open accusations of nuisance edits and left-wing media bias (must be all those Rethinking Marxism citations), I would like to open a discussion on whether Talk:QAnon merits semi-protected status. Johncdraper (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johncdraper, this is not how pages get semi-protected. If you want it to be protected, make a request at WP:RFPP and an uninvolved admin will consider it. We are hesitant to protect talk pages, though, given that they are to be used for article improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu Thank your for your reply. I am a newbie to WP:RFPP. I would not want to make a request if it were not supported by one or more other editors, although I appreciate consensus may not be possible. So, if the main page editors were able to manage the volume of attempted restarts of closed discussions, I would not want to make a request that may be unnecessary. I simply note that there are repeated attempts to restart closed discussions and flag this. Flagging it seems to me better than reverting edits to Talk:QAnon. I respect the fact that you are right, including about protecting talk pages, but I would like to see some discussion on this to reassure me that I should not make the request. Johncdraper (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tone of the article

I don't believe for a second that there are is any factual basis for anything that qanon has said. But this article has a tone which is diminishing to Wikipedia.

It is hard to explain, but as an example, one can listen to a news article that reports on the same facts as reported by, say, NPR, the BBC and Fox News. NPR and Fox will use a tone that presumes that their listeners have a viewpoint and which, to a certain extent, will denigrate anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

The BBC will can produce a news article that reports the same facts, but which doesn't put out the attitude that "you are stupid of you don't agree with me".

Now, think about this for a minute. Even if you are a strong believer in a viewpoint that can't be supported, an attack is less likely to change your mind than a well reasoned, supported article.

This article seems to flop back and forth between a political screed and a well supported article.

I guess that I feel that this article needs to be heavily edited. Leave in the time line. Leave in the facts. Take out the slant. Surely the facts speak for themselves, and as it sits, it will make a believer just lump Wikipedia with the "liberal mainstream media". Simicich (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is far, far too vague to be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

The 2nd sentence is not correct and should be removed: "No part of the theory has been shown to be based in fact.". Even though there is a reference, it is factually incorrect. Epstein was in Q theory before proven, and was correct. BeerisproofGodlovesU (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article have an encyclopedic tone, or is it an emotional hit piece?

Article says, for example, Q: Its proponents have been called "a deranged conspiracy cult"[16] and "some of the Internet's most outré Trump fans".[37] /Q

Are those weasel words, "have been called", employed to make a degrading comment without overtly taking ownership of the statement? Outré??? Does that term give the article a comical tone? Is this intended to smear Trump? BTW, throwing out the expression "conspiracy theory" with the idea that this label spares the writer from a rational debunk, may also be a species of weasel words. I suggest a rational revision of the article, factually based, free of mud-slinging. For example, one might say that QAnon postulates a conspiracy between person A, B, C, etc. "Conspiracy theory" is now used to label some movement or person as a crackpot, when it is not necessarily crackpot to assert that a conspiracy exists (2 or more persons joined together to accomplish some evil goal). (PeacePeace (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Those are not Wikipedia's words, those are words from various observers of the subject. Since all of QAnon's accusations are about alleged conspiracies, and since none of them have any substance to them (as all reliable sources confirm), "conspiracy theory" is the exactly right term to use. Our Neutral Point of View policy is not an intellectual suicide pact; it does not mean that we have to pretend that Flat Earthers, birthers, Holocaust denialists and QAnon are anything but what they are: idiots and nonsense-spreaders.--Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

Just delete the whole damn thing. Biased garbage. 38.117.232.129 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

do you mean WP:TNT? Regards --Devokewater (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it is biased in that we don't call QAnon the paranoid and fascist Mammon cultus that it is.
...Oh, were you complaining that we take the more moderate (but still realistic) approach in describing it as a collection of inconsistent (and rather ironic) conspiracy theories? That would indicate you shouldn't be editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

This is obviously biased. Sad to see you all going the way of Google, YouTube and Snopes. Just kidding - none of them started out unbiased. You did though. Bye bye. 173.175.98.165 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2020 (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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

The second sentence in the article, No part of the theory is based on fact", needs to be removed because it is both a supposition and is not supported by the quoted source, which is itself an opinion article, with no supportive evidence given. 66.128.245.149 (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is supported by a reliable source (not in fact an opinion piece). Wikipedia reflects what sources say. If you have reliable (!) sources saying differently, feel free to present them here. Otherwise, this type of discussion won’t lead to anything no matter how often it is repeated. Cheers ⌘ hugarheimur 15:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but did you just actually claim that CNN is a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
100.12 has previously tried to argue that the Proud Boys aren't fascist, and so may be dismissed as a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Proud Boys are not fascist, if they are then it would be useful to provide evidence that they are so that the public could be informed. Instead, the same argument is made on that wiki as it is here that a technicality means you can copy verbatim from a 3rd party source so long as it is on a list of approved news outlets. CNN cannot be taken seriously any longer for a variety of reasons, just two days ago anchor Chris Cuomo stated on air that fact checking was only necessary for the RNC because the DNC does not lie. Wikipedia sources should be unbiased, but if you insist on bias sources there should at least be a counter.
But back to QANON, unlike the Proud Boys article where a false statement is made regarding fascism, QANON does indeed promote conspiracy theories that do not appear to be based on any fact. My point was solely that CNN is no longer a legitimate source for facts. If anyone is actually interested in the entire story of the Proud Boys by the way, from the mouth of Anthony Cumia who was there when Gavin Mcinnes started the proud boys as a goof he explains the whole story in this interview clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFaK6N5mz2U — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:QAnon&oldid=974939988"