Talk:QAnon: Difference between revisions

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the QAnon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please read before starting Wikipedia policy notes for new editors: A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents QAnon in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are: Neutral point of view: Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI) Neutral point of view: Due and undue weight (WP:UNDUE) Neutral point of view: Giving "equal validity" (WP:GEVAL) Also of particular relevance are: Tendentious editing: Righting Great Wrongs (WP:RGW) Verifiability: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (WP:REDFLAG) In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative Views B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Skepticism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the QAnon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

QAnon received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A lack of evidence is not proof that evidence is being censored. It just means you're making stuff up. M.Clay1 (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article says Q has "falsely" accused hollywood actors, politicians, etc of being part of an international child sex trafficking operation. No evidence is cited proving that these claims are false. I don't believe any investigation has been done regarding all of these claims, to say whether or not these claims are false. With the public knowledge surrounding Epstein and Maxwell, I feel this claim at least deserves to be reported neutrally, as opposed to saying it is a false claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalepmay (talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dalepmay, no evidence suggests that it is true. You're looking at this the wrong way. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Things have not been proven false or true, so therefore Wikipedia editors should not be passing judgement. "Unproven" is a better word than "Falsely" 2600:1700:2196:2A60:6168:D392:DE34:39DD (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're just disconnected from reality. QAnon started with the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, when a bunch of Neo-Nazis sharing pornographic images of underage anime girls decided to claim that a pizza parlor that didn't have a basement was hiding children in the basement. It has been false from the start. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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

• @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)[reply]

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

When, and via what investigative body, was any of the child trafficking allegations proven false? News reporters nervously laughing something off does not debunk the allegations. A few celebrities denying wrongdoing does not debunk the allegations. Without a formal, thorough, and complete investigation, who's to say the allegations are false? The news surround Epstein and Maxwell sure makes it look questionable. If someone within wikipedia has knowledge specifically related to the truth, or lack there of, regarding these claims, they need to come forward to the FBI, not just deny some claim on this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalepmay (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dalepmay, that's the beauty of a conspiracy theory and how it self-perpetuates. A gunman stormed the Comet pizzeria expecting a child sex ring in the basement and came up empty, but that's enough proof for Q supporters. There is no evidence at all that supports any of this, and yet you're looking for proof that it's false. Epstein and Maxwell have nothing to do with the QAnon theory, though it sure is interesting that Q supporters think Trump is here to break up a child sex ring, and yet he wished Maxwell well yesterday. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dalepmay, it has been investigated. No one has provided a shred of evidence that Hillary Clinton is involved in a global pedophile ring. In fact, if anything, the Epstien evidence would implicate Donald Trump, but QAnon believers quickly dismiss that possibility and pivot right back to the Democrats. And one of the nutjobs who believes this stuff went into Comet Ping Pong with a rifle to investigate the basement which... doesn't exist. This entire concept is 10 pounds of bullshit in a 5 pound container. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, perhaps the unqualified “falsely accused” is a little strong?

I say this with the purest of intentions: we don’t know whether these accusations are true. Common sense says they are false. They are almost certainly false; however we don’t know that for certain without a trial.

I propose the addition of a qualifying word, such as “presumably”, or a rephrasing. AndrewKkh (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the central tenets of QAnon is that the accusations of cannibalism and child slaves can't be disproven. The watering-down that you propose is inconsistent with mainstream media accounts of QAnon as baseless nonsense. Wikipedia isn't a congenial home for favorable accounts of undisprovable criminal accusations. Acroterion (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Head of NYPD union gives Fox News interview with QAnon mug in background Head of NYPD union gives Fox News interview with QAnon mug in background Marshall Cohen By Marshall Cohen, CNN Talkingtoyouman (talk) 00:55, 26 July 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.

Not surprising. Also, not WP:DUE for an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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]

"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]

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]

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]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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]

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]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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]

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]

This makes no sense to me, they are a group that are against paedophilia, is that classed as far right? The only thing I can think of is their support of the current president of the United States, however he is definitely not far right, based on his policies, especially surrounding the financial support during the Covid19 outbreak he would be considered center to left. Plus calling Trump far right would be very insulting to his Millions of voters and fans around the world. Cubix1990 (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]