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 Sxologist (talk | contribs) at 10:11, 6 November 2020 (→‎Consider the troll hypothesis: Typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]
It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "lies" in the tone it's used in sounds more like a Facebook post than an encyclopedia article. Who writes articles like that? It's like childish accusations and name-calling or something instead of presenting facts in a dignified manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.107.33 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The theory is a blatant lie. I'm sorry something happened in your life that you've fallen for such a cartoony conspiracy theory, but we must keep common sense. This isn't an attack, but please see WP:COMPETENCE. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"No part of the theory is based on fact."

This stamement is an opinion, not a fact. The reason why it is so is not in the references used as sources for this statement, but the way this statement is phrased. You see, when someone invents a theory, they base it on some facts. Otherwise it is a fiction, not a theory. So, is QAnon a conspircy theory, or is it not? If it is, then it is based at least on one fact, and that is a fact. Can you follow?

So, please, remove this statement or rephrase this idea in such a way that it becomes a valid statement, like this: "Little proof has been found to support this theory". Or: "Some regard this theory as pure fiction". These statements prevent False balance while still maintaining neutral, encyclopedic tone. ENDrain (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC) — ENDrain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@ENDrain: If we're going to carry that reasoning to it's (il)logical conclusion, then Game of Thrones isn't fiction because the existence of humanity, winter, castles, ravens, and swords are facts even if they're used in bizarre ways. Yes, the conspiracy theory starts off with things that exist (Russia, Donald Trump, the Democratic party), but it starts off by making false claims about those things that exist. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, we will not remove it. There has been absolutely no proof cited in the media or in common sense to back this up. Please consider reading WP:COMPETENCE and understand "No part of the theory is based on fact." is an objective fact. I cannot follow your logic and I doubt it's backed by policy. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Hey, there is this verifyable fact, and here is my fictional narrative that connects/explains/builds up on that fact' - this is how a conspiracy theory usually starts. The theory itself, it couldn't have existed without a fact to be based onto. It would've been pure fiction otherwise, a made-up story about made-up facts based on concepts that exist IRL.

You can't have "theory" and "no part is based on facts" in one sentence, it's a paradox. When put this way it sounds biased. This conspiracy theory is in fact pure fiction? Ok: "Known as a conspiracy theory, QAnon is in fact a work of pure fiction as it is not based neither does it reference any facts". ENDrain (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC) — ENDrain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You need to learn what the colloquial phrase "conspiracy theory" means. It is not a scientific theory. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most newspapers follow style books, like the NYT and AP style book. Paul Krugman said that when he started, the NYT didn't allow him to call someone a "liar" -- even if the person was a liar, and even though Krugman was writing an opinion column. More recently, they let Krugman call people "liar." However, they don't say that in their news columns -- because news columns are the voice of the newspaper, not the individual reporter.
Wikipedia's style is more like news style than opinion style. There are lots of views and theories that I think are false, ridiculous, not based on fact, and arguably lies, but if I were writing in news style, I wouldn't use those words. I would attribute them to someone else, who could provide supporting arguments. I don't think Wikipedia's style sheets, policies and guidelines would allow you to say, "No part of the theory is based on fact." In Wikipedia style, I would say something like, "Repeated investigations by mainstream news media have concluded that the main claims of the theory are false."
The statement, "No part of the theory is based on fact" is literally false. The theory is based on facts. Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, and Donald Trump are real people. That statement is using hyperbole to denigrate the theory. Why use hyperbole? Why exaggerate? The truth is bad enough.
The decisions here should follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the article should use attributed opinions of WP:RSs, not the Wikipedia editors' personal opinions. Can we all agree on that? --Nbauman (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The theory isn't that the Clintons and Obama exist, the theory is that they're involved in a child sex ring and trying to bring down Trump or something like that. There is literally no validity to these claims and we don't want to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE by suggesting there could be truth to these theories in the absence of any evidence. We follow wiki politices, not the AP or NYT style guide. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald Trump exist is not part of a conspiracy theory. Reliable sources say no part of the theory is based in fact and it is baseless. We rely on reliable sources, challenging that fundamental foundation is perhaps a topic for another venue. soibangla (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: Lol, an untrue conspiracy theory based off of nothing doesn't suddenly become valid because you mention real people. I can't accuse you of being a murderer and say that Bill Clinton help covered the body and now my nutty conspiracy theory becomes slightly factual because I mentioned Clinton. Conspiracy theories based on nothing remains fiction even if you invoke actual politicians. The theory is awful and lacks any sense of reality as every source points out and if we were to treat it seriously like you said, Wikipedia would lose any credence it had. It's time to read WP:Competence and realize this is an awful argument for an awful edit. It is not hyperbole to call a baseless conspiracy theory a baseless conspiracy theory, it's a blatant fact and if you believe otherwise I'd recommend WP:COI and WP:Competence again. Please do not interpret this as a WP:PERSONALATTACKS, I'm not attacking you just your points and arguments. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find it... confusing, to say the least, in the light of the Epstein-related trials, to assume that the claims of a nation-wide pedophile ring were "debunked". But hey, that's the Wikipedia, after all... --Tuxman (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone not inclined to believe such theories. I'd heard this thing mentioned over and over in the media and finally came over here to figure out what they were talking about. I was kind of insulted by the tone of this article as well. It definitely is not written from WP:NPOV. It feels like the author of the article is more concerned with persuading the reader that the theory is false than accurately describing theory itself. For example Chemtrail conspiracy theory spends a good deal of space describing what the theory is exactly and what reasons people might have to believe the theory. I'm not asking for this article to present positive reasons to believe the theory, but I would like to at least come away with a sense of what the theory is and why these people believe it; and as it stands, this article doesn't do that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The conspiracy theory is completely false. That is documented fact.
  2. The conspiracy theory has spurred people into acts of terrorism and violence. That is also documented fact.
  3. The conspiracy theory, like most conspiracy theories, tends to change the details whenever part of it is falsified. "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,", from Conspiracy theory. There are entire sections of the article dedicated to the varied beliefs of this conspiracy theory (now commonly desccribed as a cult, https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/07/tech/qanon-europe-cult-intl/index.html) and if you believe they are not making it clear what exactly the cult believes, I submit that the problem is that the cult itself changes or rewrites beliefs without notice and isn't clear about the current beliefs beyond a few key points that are in the lead of the article.
  4. Part of the reason that the wikipedia article needs to be incredibly clear that the conspiracy theory is false is to make sure that wikipedia's article is not turned into a recruiting tool for a group of people known to be violently disconnected from reality.
Does that make more sense? IHateAccounts (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kraftlos, neutrality is not the midpoint between facts and batshit insanity. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reorg first few sections

The info in this article is organized a little haphazardly, making it hard to follow from start to finish. I'd boldly change it myself but I don't want to barge in if there's some logic I'm missing. So I'd like to recommend reorganizing/resectioning it as follows: (1) Start with Background, prior conspiracies, milieu, anything the reader needs to know upfront before reading the theory itself, (2) "Theory and claims" combining the "false claims" section from below as there's no difference between the theory and the claims, (3) "Origins and spread" tracking its growth into mainstream popularity, (4) Identity, (5) not sure what to do with the rest aside from reducing the number of sections and proseline but I can give it more thought if that would be helpful. czar 18:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"QAnon[a] (/ˌkjuːəˈnɒn/) is a far-right conspiracy theory[b] alleging that a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles running a global child sex-trafficking ring is plotting against President Donald Trump" - I doubt very much that this is the essence of what most QAnon supporters think. It may have been correct some day in the past, but they don't mention it anywhere in their "basics" document. [1] Teun Spaans (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with what I proposed? czar 17:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd Support a reorganization like this. It makes a lot more sense. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under Identity of Q

IT seems odd that it was reported as far back as 2018 by NBC that there is video evidence of the person known widely as "pamphlet anon", Coleman Rogers logging into Q's tripcode but his name is not floated anywhere else as a possible identity of "Q" https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531; specifically the section

"One archived livestream appears to show Rogers logging into the 8chan account of “Q.”The Patriots’ Soapbox feed quickly cuts out after the login attempt. “Sorry, leg cramp,” Rogers says, before the feed reappears seconds later.

Users in the associated chatroom begin to wonder if Rogers had accidentally revealed his identity as Q. “How did you post as Q?” one user wrote.

In another livestreamed video, Rogers begins to analyze a supposed “Q” post on his livestream program when his co-host points out that the post in question doesn’t actually appear on Q’s feed and was authored anonymously. Rogers’ explanation — that Q must have forgotten to sign in before posting — was criticized as extremely unlikely by people familiar with the message boards, as it would require knowledge of the posting to pick it out among hundreds of other anonymous ones."

slrry if my format is wrong it's been 10 years since I edited something on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8200:2600:5017:7F0B:B05E:9B29 (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see we do use this NBC source several times. Is there something there that we're missing that should be included? -- Valjean (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added this previously but it was removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now re-added this to the "Identity of Q" section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg article

This Bloomberg article might be useful for the page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

The background section feels out of place as it jumps into a summery of Pizzagate right away. I feel it needs a bit of a lead in. Thoughts? blindlynx (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QAnonism started off as the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That might be worth specifically mentioning before launching into the description of Pizzagate, I agree with blindlynx. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True. Something to the effect of "QAnon is an offshoot of the earlier Pizzagate movement." might be a good intro sentence for that section. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words

Article makes heavy use of weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superpacket (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? This is an 8500 word article so pointing out these instances directly would be helpful in addressing your concern. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More on QAnon churches

Discussion started here and got archived.

These sources got collected in the linked discussion:

And here are more links on the religious angle on QAnon that has developed in a lot of reliable sources:

Jlevi (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue is that these articles are mostly comparing Q to a religion, or speculating that it may become a new religious movement. We're not at the point of an actual Q faith yet. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cuties

The inclusion of this film in the "See Also" section and the brief description of it frames the very widespread criticism of the film as part of QAnon. The film has been criticised by very many people with no relation to QAnon for it's sexualisation of children and linking that criticism to QAnon seems like a dishonest way to try and discredit critics of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.199.53 (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of the film is as a critique on the sexualization of children in the entertainment industry. It was QAnon that began the "Netflix is promoting child porn!" angle. The fact other people got swept up in the frenzy isn't really relevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feelings about the film and your opinion that the sexualisation of children is justifiable as some kind of ironic critique really isn't relevant, where is your evidence that QAnon was the first source to criticize the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.176.163 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You twisting HTF's words into saying that he's justifying sexualization of children rather indicates that you're the one going off of feelings here, and in the fashion of someone who would be duped by QAnon. If that wasn't the case, you would have understood what he meant instead of taking the most antagonistic interpretation possible. And now you're going to misinterpret my words because you've got to protect your rage totem and can't let things like cooperation or paying attention get in the way of that. If you want to prove me wrong, your next response (if you make one) needs to show that you understand that the film was actually opposing the sexualization of children. But how can that be? Easy: the marketing department made a huge mistake that does not reflect on the movie, and then luddites, people who watch YouTube instead of reading actual news, and some assholes who were really just angry that the protagonist wasn't a white man decided to insist that that one advert was the entire movie.
If your response fails to take that into account, we'll know that we can't rely on you to do any actual research, nor to pay attention to other users (especially when they have information you can't comfortably fit beside your rage-totems). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

I want to point out that the cabal that Donald Trump fights is also stated to be New World Order-ian. Aertgan (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No reliable source to confirm the validity of this conspiracy theory. Philip Cross (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're trying to say there are similarities between the two conspiracies... it's plausible. However, without reliable, third-party sources saying so, we can't include it as that would be original research. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube ban

"YouTube bans QAnon, other conspiracy content that targets individuals"

It's rather narrowly worded though:

“On the one hand, it is certainly more aggressive than their current harassment or conspiracy theory policies,” Lewis said. “On the other hand, by only prohibiting conspiratorial content that specifically targets other individuals or groups, it may leave huge amounts of leeway for QAnon content to continue to thrive.”

Would definitely fit into this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. Have added citations to The New York Times and The Washington Post. Philip Cross (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change

Overall I think the intro gives a good overview of the theory, however I think the statement "No part of the theory is based on fact." is a bit blunt and un-informative and could be improved. I think the approach by the Pizzagate conspiracy theory seems much more informative which states "It has been extensively discredited by a wide range of organizations, including the Washington, D.C. police." since it clearly states the same information but also provides the reader with information of which organizations have discredited the theory. As a reader I think this type of information should actually be upfront and not hidden in the footnotes. Unlike many other conspiracy theories where it is very difficult to source and find credible people who spend time debunking the theory, this is a case where this is quite easy and there are many credible sources who have spent time to debunk the theory, so I think we should lead with that. I would therefore suggest to change "No part of the theory is based on fact." to "It has been extensively discredited by a wide range of organizations, including the FBI, which has labelled it a potential source of domestic terrorism." with the bold part of the sentence up for debate since this assessment is discussed further down in the 4th paragraph. Best regards. --hroest 14:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Adding extra detail to organizations who discredited it would strengthen the claim and make it look more neutral, especially given that the majority of people do not look at footnotes. QuantumWasp (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing that would just make those entities mega-targets for Qanon abuse. Besides any list of orgs or people who consider it to be a fact that Qanon is idiotic nonsense would have to include everyone on the planet who isn't one of the Qanon sheeple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2020

Shouldn't QAnon be reclassified as a "Movement" not a "Conspiracy Theory?" 47.202.170.15 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Username6892 18:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth article

This may be relevant: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/tech/qanon-believer-how-he-got-out/index.html 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picture edited to make Deadpool patch look like a Q

Even cursory analysis of the patch on the sheriff’s uniform would show that it is a Deadpool patch. Memorabilia from the Marvel Character Deadpool. Jedimedic77 (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed] Grayfell (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The patch in the photo is nothing like the standard Deadpool patch, which is a red circle and vertical stripe with two white eyes on a black background, not a black 'Q' on a red background. I've just looked and I can't find any reference to the idea that the officer was wearing a Deadpool patch, even on right-wing/conspiracy theory sites.
Anyway, the main thing is if you want to change the caption to say the patch is either misconstrued or photoshopped then you you'll have to find a credible source that states that it was. As I say, I couldn't find any source making this claim. --Shimbo (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it not a photoshop, the sheriff was disciplined for it and demoted. Multiple sources:
"“For this event, SWAT Team Leader — Sergeant Patten intentionally placed an unauthorized symbol / patch onto his agency issued SWAT vest to meet and post with V.P.O.T.U.S Pence,” the memo read."@Jedimedic77: you're going to need a heck of a source to contradict the multiple reliable sources and the proof in his being disciplined and demoted for it. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Predictions

Would a list of QAnon's failed predictions be a useful addition to the article? There are credible sources that have listed QAnon's failures, for example this Daily Dot article QAnon Failed Predictions (The Daily Dot is considered "generally reliable for Internet culture" according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources).--Shimbo (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, we should at least touch on QAnon claims that directly relate to other articles, such as the Trump military parade. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section on 'failed prophecies' and reformatted the 'false claims' section to make it clearer. --Shimbo (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the distinction between a conspiracy theory and a cult?

I've noticed recently that some media sources are going ahead and calling this movement a cult. CNN NBC Rolling Stone Open Democracy WGBH just to name a few. Belief in a mysterious oracle, a rotating cast of illuminated ones who interpret the prophecies for the faithful, the utter inability to recognize when they were entirely wrong about something. Sounds like a cult to me. I think it may be worth mentioning at the very least that they are increasingly seen and referred to as a cult. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good observation and the sourcing you provided is definitely solid. I Support this proposal. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"¿Por qué no los dos?" The Church of Scientology uses CTs for recruiting (I know, not RS but still insightful). Source amnesia, but I've seen Gnosticism as described as a collection of conspiracy theories about Genesis. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing with this excellent collection of sources is some of them seem to me to be using 'cult' as a metaphor or allusion (the NBC article) or not directly calling QAnon a cult (Rolling Stone has quotes from a cult expert but classifies QAnon as a "system of conspiracy theories"). The CNN, WGBH and Open Democracy articles do directly call QAnon a cult so they're the strongest sources for this change, but WGBH and Open Democracy aren't on the list at WP:RSP. The CNN article also talk a lot about it being a "community".
I'd suggest adding a section named something like 'QAnon as a Sociological Phenomena' under 'Analysis', which contains sourced information about how QAnon has characteristics of a community, cult or religion. This could also bring in the sources that have been previously mentioned on this talk page suggesting that whether the accusations are true isn't the point as far as believers are concerned. This section could initially be sourced to the CNN article (and the WGBH and Open Democracy articles if they're reliable sources), and any future references to the characteristics of the group can go in this section too. --Shimbo (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WGBH Educational Foundation overlaps so much with PBS that they have to be reliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WGBH source is an interview with Travis View, which would probably need to be cited to him directly (he's also already cited in the article as a verified expert on the topic). 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

correcting sentence

Need to make a edit to replace sentence "and plotting against President Donald Trump" to now read "and plotting to support President Donald Trump" Lil playa408 (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Asartea Trick | Treat 11:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update Trump QAnon promotions

"According to analysis conducted by Media Matters for America, as of August 2020, Trump had amplified QAnon messaging at least 216 times by retweeting or mentioning 129 QAnon-affiliated Twitter accounts, sometimes multiple times a day."

This should now be changed to: As Of October 2020, 258 times via at least 150 QAnon-affiliated accounts. Source: Footnote QuantumWasp (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QuantumWasp,  Done. Do try to use {{Edit extended-protected}} in future however as that makes it easier to find these requests. Asartea Trick | Treat 16:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite following parts according to NPOV

This article is very well sourced, however some of the current phrasing feels editorialized and biased. I've highlighted the phrases that I think should be reformed to more neutral language, and perhaps adding detail from footnotes into the text. Also added some parts that I think need to be improved overall.

  • "No part of the theory is based on fact": Improvement to this has been linked above in the Talk Page
  • "NBC News found that three people took the original Q post and expanded it across multiple media platforms to build internet followings for profit." : Perhaps change from found to reported, and add detail to for profit part instead of giving the conclusion.
  • "'Q' is a reference to the Q clearance used by the U.S. Department of Energy." : This part should be moved before all of the references to Q start.
  • "Bill Mitchell, a broadcaster who promotes QAnon" : perhaps "has repeatedly promoted QAnon", or something similar.
  • "At an August 2019 rally, a man warming up the crowd before Trump spoke used the QAnon motto": sentence doesn't make grammatical sense.
  • "This occurred hours after the publication of a report that the FBI had determined QAnon to be a potential source of domestic terrorism": sentence needs to be reworded to be more readable
  • "The number of QAnon adherents is unclear as of October 2020": perhaps 'adherents' word should be changed.
  • In June 2020, Q exhorted followers to take a "digital soldiers oath", and many did, using the Twitter hashtag #TakeTheOath: This part needs to explain what the digital soliders oath is. It is unclear without going to the footnote.
  • "where they organized to wage information warfare to influence the 2020 United States presidential election.": while this again is true, I think it needs to be reworded, or have more details added to it. QuantumWasp (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done: I've done some work on this. Here are the changes I made.
Some things I haven't changed:
  • No part of the theory is based on fact...
    • You'll probably need to build consensus to change that
  • At an August 2019 rally, a man warming up the crowd...
    • Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format
  • The number of QAnon adherents...
    • Probably need to build consensus to change that, but I agree maybe "follower" would be better
  • In June 2020, Q exhorted followers to take a "digital soldiers oath"...
    • Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format
  • where they organized to wage information warfare
    • Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format
– Anne drew 18:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"At an August 2019 rally, a man warming up the crowd before Trump spoke used the QAnon motto": sentence doesn't make grammatical sense."

This sentence is grammatically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QAnon#Analysis

The first graf in this section looks a bit WP:ORish to me. Yes, one source does link QAnon to The Paranoid Style in American Politics, but it's one paragraph in a listicle. The second sentence also reads like a literature essay. What do others think? I am not well-versed in the QAnon mythos, so it's possible that this analysis is quite on-point/encyclopedic, but I'm not seeing it at the moment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just skimming it, the important parts are cited to sources that make the argument stated in the article with regards to QAnon (so it's not WP:OR), but a lot of this should probably be attributed per WP:RSOPINION, since it's cited to opinion pieces - especially the Alexander Reid Ross piece, which is explicitly labeled opinion and is used as a cite for half the article. Ross is a subject-matter expert, so citing them prominently is fair, but it could still say something like "According to Alexander Reid Ross, doctoral fellow at the Center for the Analysis of the Radical Right, QAnon is..." --Aquillion (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Free Speech

QAnon is clearly poisonous bullshit. But there is an issue of free speech. Should they be allowed to say these things or should there be arbiters of truth that ban unpalatable views? There has been some discussion on this that would be good to see in the article. The section at the end talking about reactions by some social media is good, but I think this line could be developed further by an expert. To me, it is a key point -- how does a democratic society deal with things like QAnon? Tuntable (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What sources would you want to use for it? In particular, are there any non-opinion sources you'd want to cite for this? --Aquillion (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...But there is an issue of free speech". So you say in your second sentence, and then fail to provide any example of free speech being an issue in the rest of your paragraph. The fact is there is no issue of free speech regarding QAnon because no government entity has ever censored them, in fact, with Trump the opposite is the case. The very existence of Qanon is proof that free speech is as robust as it ever has been. What you may be referring to is private companies (Twitter, Facebook, Jimbo's Gas Station, etc) deciding they don't need to provide access to their facilities to people who do things like spray painting swastikas all over those facilities. If you think 'free speech' should mean something else, then take it up with the page on 'free speech'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia are private entities and forcing them to present domestic terrorist lies would violate their free speech (and nevermind the old myth "yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't protected by free speech"). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2020

In 2020 media platform YouTube enacted a policy to stop the spread of misleading and dangerous information by prohibiting QAnon promoting content. Several [1] Frazzeledferret (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point however where should it be added according to you? Asartea Trick | Treat 17:32, 22 October 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/technology/youtube-bans-qanon-violence.html. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Impact in the UK

Not going to edit, but [2] Doug Weller talk 18:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banned by Patreon

Patreon has announced today that they will ban Q-Anon accounts as well: https://www.businessinsider.com/patreon-bans-qanon-conspiracy-theory-users-latest-tech-company-2020-10 IHateAccounts (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2020

Please change the first line to say “Not to be confused with Qanun” instead of “For the instrument, see Qanun (instrument)” thank you 2600:6C64:6C7F:37D4:A556:A40C:F2BE:6DA1 (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Terasail[Talk] 23:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded it a bit. Qanun, Canon and Kanon all have disambiguation pages. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the troll hypothesis

QAnon doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory; it sounds like a parody of a conspiracy theory. And it started on 4chan and 8chan, which are full of trolls, not conspiracy theorists. I for one would appreciate some attempt to guess how many people QAnon "supporters" are just doing it for the lulz. This is important in order to decide how much of a threat it poses and how to oppose it. Arguing against it using reason will only encourage trolls. Philgoetz (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QAnon definitely has legit supporters, even if it was a joke to begin with. Heck, tonight, voters chose 2 q-believers to head to Congress. SWinxy (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People do genuinely believe it. However, if there are reliable secondary sources demonstrating that parts of it originate with trolls, that would be useful to include because it helps to discredit the conspiracy. To be honest it kind of already covers this in the third opening paragraph: reported that three people took the original Q post and spread it across multiple media platforms to build an internet following. QAnon was preceded by several similar anonymous 4chan posters, such as FBIAnon, HLIAnon (High-Level Insider), CIAAnon, and WH Insider Anon. Sxologist (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "troll hypothesis" would need Wikipedia:Reliable sources to have inclusion in this article. Also, part of the problem of the "troll hypothesis" is the likelihood that "ironic nazis" were or are just actual nazis, and likewise that other "ironic" bigotries are indistinguishable from the real thing, with "actual bigotry camouflaged as ironic bigotry" being often used to smuggle the real thing into spaces where it would not be otherwise tolerated. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's just a way to brush off the seriousness of it. Let's not forget that QAnon and pizzagate have lead to real terrorism threats. P.S. I wondered about the mentioning of the use of 8kun in the opening? To me, that inclusion seems like something that's gonna drive people to that forum. I know WP:NOTCENSORED applies and it is covered by Wired, so I have no strong opinion. Sxologist (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New Republic has an article: Ironic Nazis Are Still Nazis:Hatred often hides behind a mask of jokiness. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, see above. Sxologist (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2020 (2)

I want to delete this article because it promotes fake news. Jabpiz (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine as long as you can get John F. Kennedy's permission to do so. Volunteer Marek 08:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Terasail[Talk] 10:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:QAnon&oldid=987333793"