Talk:QAnon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Size

The page length (in bytes) is currently 191,304. As I understand it, after reading WP:TOOBIG that means it "Almost certainly should be divided". We could certainly make detail articles for "Origin of QAnon", "Claims of QAnon" and perhaps some others along the lines of "Analysis and Comment on the QAnon Phenomena", "Role of QAnon in US Politics", "Criticism, Debunking and Banning of QAnon" The article also has some issues with readability IMO. For example, the lead is much longer than recommended by MOS:LEAD and IMO is neither "a concise overview of the article's topic" or "four well-composed paragraphs" and much of the article body, IMO, needs copy-editing for clarity. --Shimbo (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure this deserves multiple articles, it's not that major. Rather let's discuss education of material.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Given that the article is almost double the maximum length suggested by WP:TOOBIG it would be a tough job to cut it down without sub-articles IMO. I (or someone else) could probably edit the lead down to a more appropriate size, but I'm conscious of just how controversial that would likely be (as would any removal of material, probably). --Shimbo (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it, we can reduce the size but cutting down the "Failed predictions" to one or two examples and then in front "Quanon has made many false predictions such as". We could easily decide much of this, we do not need everything they do or say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say you're going to have to build a consensus before you start drastically reducing the content of the article. I for one am not in favour and my opinion is that sub-articles would be a better approach. I also don't agree that QAnon is "not that major". QAnon was a big factor in a coup attempt in the USA. To me that's pretty major. Also, it clearly gets a ton of coverage in reputable sources and that's what Wikipedia is supposed to reflect, isn't it? Maybe we need an RfC to decide the way forward? --Shimbo (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm against reduction. Size is fine. RfC is disallowed per WP:RFCNOT. Make a concrete split proposal and start a formal process. (e: when I say "against reduction" I mean against further reduction -- a MASSIVE reduction was already undertaken in connection with this discussion: Talk:QAnon#Split of incidents is good, resulting in Timeline of incidents involving QAnon) — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I propose moving the bulk of the content in "Background" and "Origin and Spread" into a sub-article entitled "Origins of QAnon", the bulk of the content in "Conspiracy Claims" into a sub-article entitled "QAnon Conspiracy Claims" and the bulk of the material in "Analysis" and "Appeal" into a sub-article entitled "Analysis of QAnon" Please let me know if there is a more formal process than this for suggesting creation of sub-articles. --Shimbo (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shimbo: So:

1	Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Origins of QAnon
2	Origin and spread  . . . . . . . . . . . . . Origins of QAnon
3	Conspiracy claims  . . . . . . . . . . . . . QAnon Conspiracy Claims
4	Identity of Q  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QAnon
5	Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of QAnon
6	Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of QAnon
7	FBI domestic terrorism assessment  . . . . . QAnon
8	Role in U.S. elections and government  . . . QAnon
9	Comments by Trump and connected individuals  QAnon
10	Reactions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QAnon
11	Incidents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Timeline of incidents involving QAnon (already split out)

... which would leave this article with:

Identity of Q                               
FBI domestic terrorism assessment           
Role in U.S. elections and government       
Comments by Trump and connected individuals 
Reactions                                   

Along with cursory coverage of what was moved out. To me this looks like it would make for a terrible, disjointed, parent article. Splitting needs to both create a viable new article and to present an improvement to the source article. Not only would this not be an improvement here, none of the new articles feel like normal standalones to me. Edit: the formal process for splitting is described here: WP:PROSPLIT. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you think creating sub-articles would mean the parent article would then only have "cursory" coverage, or "disjointed" remnants of the original article. Isn't the point to have a WP:SUMMARY in the main article and then have the WP:DETAIL in the sub-articles? Currently the background and origins sections are 1,600 words, which on their own are about a five minute read. I don't see how summarising that background info would make the article "terrible" - on the contrary it would seem entirely in keeping with the summary style. Also, as far as I can tell from WP:PROSPLIT the first step of the process is to start a discussion on the talk page? --Shimbo (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - Note that TOOBIG is referring to readable prose, not the article including all the Wikimarkup. Per XTools, the actual prose text of this article is about 63k. Still on the big side, but not big enough to require splitting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Hardly even on the big side. This is a massively notable topic with vast (vast...) coverage. In all honestly, this article is fantastic in sorting out the crud. It could have been a LOT worse. Work needs more appreciation. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

'Oppose There is a lot of chaff here we can cut, do we need a huge list of their mistake (for example)?Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the current (medium) size is a management issue, or that it makes the article difficult to read. It's probably easier to patrol when most of the material is at one place... —PaleoNeonate – 00:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

A good point, which (given Q nature) is highly important.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Reactions split

I combined all reactions subject matter into h2 'Reactions'. I propose a split of this section into a new article titled 'Reactions to QAnon' to address the size concern. But a summary needs to be written first. I invite everyone to help write a summary for this long section. The summary would act as a lead for the new article and would be transcluded here per WP:SYNC.

Reactions summary draft

QAnon received a generally negative official response, with FBI identifying QAnon-driven extremists as a domestic terrorism threat, and Congress passing a resolution to condemn the movement and reject its conspiracy theories. The movement has had a role in the U.S. elections, with some Republican electoral candidates expressing interest and support for the conspiracy theory, including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, who have since been elected to Congress.

Increased media coverage of QAnon had appeared in 2018. A notable case is actor Roseanne Barr appearing to have promoted the movement, which led to significant coverage in the media. During the year, news segments dedicated to the conspiracy theory began airing, and a Time magazine article listed Q among the 25 Most Influential People on the Internet in 2018.

Donald Trump has refused to denounce QAnon making equivocating statements about the conspiracy theory; he had earlier called the adherents "people who love our country", and had amplified QAnon messaging through his tweets multiple times—and in various other ways, such as by inviting a promoter of QAnon to the Oval Office for a photo op. Associates of Trump have had varying reactions, such as Mike Pence at one time generally dismissing QAnon as a conspiracy theory, while Michael Flynn was noted for having given an apparent declaration of allegiance to the movement.

In the aftermath of the movement's emergence and spread, various online platforms have banned QAnon online communities and apps, and have been removing related content. Observers and groups have have made suggestions for how to defuse QAnon, to reduce it's impact on society.

Discussion

@Philip Cross, Soibangla, Beyond My Ken, Edelsmann, and AlsoWukai: I'm pinging you as the top 5 contributors to the article (by edit count) to answer whether this revision (current) is a good basis for a split. And to comment on the proposed split of Reactions. Thanks — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the "FBI domestic terrorism assessment" and the "Congressional resolution" are also "Reactions to QAnon" and should be under the same heading? --Shimbo (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, seems reasonable. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I wrote a rough draft of the summary. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I see zero benefit to splitting off a "reactions to" article. I still disagree that the article is too long, and throwing the reactions into a separate article will likely lead to arguments trying to put all criticism of QAnon into said sub-article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

False claim about Falun Gong in citation 22, linked article doesn't even mention Falun Gong.

Just wanted to point this out so hopefully someone corrects it in the article. By the end of the second paragraph in the Qanon article it says: "QAnon's conspiracy theories have been amplified by Russian state-backed troll accounts on social media,[20] as well as Russian state-backed traditional media[14][21] and networks associated with Falun Gong.[22]"

The citation (22) points to: "This massive YouTube channel is normalizing QAnon". The Daily Dot. August 27, 2019. Retrieved September 10, 2019. URL: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/edge-wonder-qanon-youtube/

If you follow the link to that article and run a word search for "Falun Gong", it is literally not mention even once, in the entire article. This citation is completely false (and probably written by CCP's 50 Cent army). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobC81 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Epoch Media Group is associated with Falun Gong - that's widely known and well supported. There's no call to resort to CCP conspiracy theorizing. I've named Epoch specifically in the article to clarify this. MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, you still need to provide a source. Turtleshell3 (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

What can I do to make the article more neutral?

Any suggestions? I don't really see how I could. Turtleshell3 (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to add something to the article then you need to find a WP:RS that has reported it. If you feel part of the article fails WP:NPOV then the best thing to do would be to raise your concern here on the talk page, but you will need to be specific and you'll need to get people to agree with you. Be polite and make specific suggestions to improve the article. That's it, really.--Shimbo (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Turtleshell3 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

To keep the article neutral

I think it would be best to not call it a cult too early, as shown in the lead section. But instead move it to another section where its proponents call it that instead, in my opinion, I think the article is already taking a side too quickly. Turtleshell3 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Problem is that is how a lot of RS describe it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a better solution is improving on that passive have been described phrase by spelling out who has been describing QAnon as a cult. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I agree. Turtleshell3 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

What. which sources, or which type of sources?Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven what do you mean? Do you mean, like maybe perhaps Pew Research? Turtleshell3 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

No I mean what I said, when we say "who describe them as a cult" who do we mean. RS call them a cult [[1]] or do we ascribe this to "QAnon and On: A Short and Shocking History of Internet Conspiracy Cults by Van Badham"? Or [[2]] or [[3]]. If it were one source that idea might work, its not.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean that it would be stronger to say something akin to Scholars such as so and so call QAnon a cult so that we're clear we're not talking about just Democrats or Antifa calling it a cult. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I see, not sure we need the examples, but it might be workable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

These articles should be to compare similarity, in my opinion it should be used in another section that explains it more detail. But, the RS I think we should use is a source that keeps it neutral on the peoples opinions on QAnon, that is why I suggested something like a think tank. The think tank in The Guardian is showing how worldwide QAnon is. Turtleshell3 (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

What @Muboshgu said. Turtleshell3 (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, they can just check the sources and see who the scholars are. Turtleshell3 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Body says that it was experts who have described QAnon as a cult, so this is now reflected in the lead. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I suggested it shouldn't be in the lead section too early. Which is why I think we should move it. Turtleshell3 (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

That's based on your concern that the article is already taking a side too quickly, right? — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Turtleshell3 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand. But this is not a valid concern, because it's based on a premise that neutrality is based on an appearance of balance whereby sides are given space, a fair forum, to present their case. This is a false premise, as it is not the sense of neutrality that we employ (see WP:GEVAL), and fundamentally not how Wikipedia works. We aren't hearing out sides, to then arbitrate on our own, i.e. take a side in the final step. We take what information is available in reliable sources to create comprehensive encyclopedic coverage, regardless of which side someone might associate these sources with. The "sides" we operate with here are: reliable and non-reliable. When something that's happening in society is characterized as a cult by experts, this is obviously something noteworthy and interesting. The first paragraph is generally about what the subject is. Therefore we help our readers understand what QAnon is by including this important piece of information in the first paragraph of the lead, which is merely a summary of the body. If somewhere in the body there were other experts saying how seeing QAnon as a cult is mistaken, we would still have been keeping this sentence in the first paragraph, but also including that other experts don't think it's a cult. It's as simple as that. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

So, what would you propose? Hm... maybe we could go off what @Muboshgu said, and describe the scholars that describe QAnon as a cult? Turtleshell3 (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Readers can see which of the sources, and authors thereof, that have called QAnon a cult, we used to make this type of claim (x called y z) by checking out the reference. No need to duplicate reference information in the article in this case. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Mm, yeah you're right. Turtleshell3 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Alalch Emis, Experts have described is an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Turtleshell3 (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, most of these RS are opinion articles. Turtleshell3 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

All being said seems like we're done here with respect to the specific neutrality concern about calling QAnon a cult in the lead; a change was made from passive to active voice to make sure that it doesn't appear to readers that it is something like "just Democrats or Antifa calling it a cult." So I'll mark this as:

 Done. Thanks everyone. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Q’Anon

weirdness from a “proud contributor” with one edit

Why such a leftist viewpoint on political subjects? I agree that Q’Anon is a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists. What I don’t appreciate is the constant attempts to make President Trump a part of it. There’s been a lot of speculation but all have been proven untrue repeatedly. Let’s base the information provided in fact. I’m a proud contributor of Wikipedia amd I expect more. 108.15.26.175 (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Is it untrue, or a leftist POV, that Trump is central to QAnon? soibangla (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Tracking QAnon: how Trump turned conspiracy-theory research upside down. By taking fringe ideas mainstream, the former US president taught new and dangerous lessons about manipulating social and mass media. I don't know where people get the idea that we, the Wikipedia editors, have decided to tie Trump to QAnon. Trump did that himself, reliable sources reported it, and we're documenting their reporting. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC) As did RS, analyzing the Q'anon posts.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC) You complain how the article makes Trump a part of the "bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists" when the article states that Trump is an element of the conspiracy theory. Obama is not a birther conspiracy theorist, and he is a part of the birther conspiracy theory. Then you characterize the conspiracy theory as a lot of speculation that has been proven untrue, which is essentially consistent with the article. So you agree with the article – both you and the sources used in the article agree that it is a fact that QAnon is a conspiracy theory made up of false claims and speculations that have proven untrue. But then you say that the article should be based on factual claims, as if it is not a fact that QAnon is a conspiracy theory. It's as if you don't understand that to call something false is also a factual claim. Do you see the deep disconnect here? These are called category mistakes. You need to think a lot better before forming an idea about how to change the article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• QAnon Gadsden Flag.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2022

Listed as "Far right conspiracy" when should just be "right wing" or "conservative" Jrock1203 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

not according to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:QAnon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 23:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh boy, this is gonna be interesting. I'll be the sacrificial lamb for this GAN. Fair warning, due to the controversial nature of this article, it will likely be a lengthy review, and don't be surprised if I request a second or third opinion just to double-check our work. A cursory glance tells me the page is relatively stable (surprisingly) but I'll give it a more comprehensive look within the next few days. Etriusus 23:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• Right off the bat, the lead is waaayyyyy too short. This is QAnon, a very high-profile group. There's very little mention of its history, how it began, or anything notable. At the very least, the background and QAnon's impact should be covered. 2 sentances isn't enough. See MOS:LEAD
• The first sentence is run on, needs to be chopped up.

Beliefs

• Why is this before the Origin section? It flows strangely. Move it further down.
• "on the cabal" This is part of the confusion on the article's flow, here we reference the cabal before establishing what it is. I get that it's referenced in the lead but the lead is a summary, not a location for establishing information, per se.
• baselessly puffery, maybe use the term "unsubstantiated" or "allegedly". Baselessly is debatable here, but I'm playing it safe.
• preventing Ce this to: "and to prevent"
• Some of QAnon's claims have been described as antisemitic or rooted in antisemitic tropes This is established later in the article and doesn't really fit with the rest of

the prose. Either move it to a more logical location or cut it.

• the conspiracy theory began with an October 2017 Why are we dipping into the origin? The beliefs section keeps bouncing between beliefs and the history of the organization. Ideally, a good chunk of this needs to be merged with the the Origin section.

---

Comments

@Etriusus: I took a careful look at history. The article was stable, but it was significantly destabilized with this no-summary edit (diff, January 22, 2022) which moved 90% of the lead to the body under h2 "Beliefs". Naming it "Beliefs" did not correspond sufficiently to the varied nature of the content. Also, there had already been a section title "Conspiracy claims" (i.e. beliefs) and the background, origin an spread content was also mostly about the beliefs – the lead content sectioned as "Beliefs" contained a summary thereof. That put the summary of the body in the body, leading to repetition and general confusion it seems.

Not a good edit. Not discussed, and it's as if it went unnoticed. GA should pause for a day or so until it can be seen if the lead should/can be restored and if subsequent edits can be saved. The lead had problems but it was much easier to trim it, than it is now to write a whole new lead (also likely leading to threefold repetition, which is difficult to assess on the go in a long article such as this). tw^sabin 00:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: I appreciate the look into the revisions. I figured that there was going to be something (although I was expecting the pending changes log to be a mess). The lead and belief sections were already raising red flags, and I'm glad there's an explanation that doesn't require rewriting the page. I'll put the review on ice until AFreshStart has an opportunity to fix it. I do however, feel like this GAN will be a It takes a village to raise a child sort of situation. Etriusus 01:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus: I am repairing the article by manually remaking all of the edits (copy pasting from diffs) after the damaging edit. I will be done soon but I will stop at edits which are affected by the confusion (removing repetition which won't be repetition once the lead is restored). tw^sabin 01:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh thanks, that does make a lot of sense! I also wondered why there were effectively two sections on beliefs (Conspiracy claims and Beliefs). Sorry if my edits complicated anything by moving the section. –AFreshStart (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus and AFreshStart: Done – Special:Diff/1070353124. Please see the edit summary. The edits after this revision were not reimplemented. Thank you for your understanding AFreshStart. I will proceed to see what can be salvaged, and perhaps you could too. tw^sabin 01:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: Greatly appreciated. Now we finally have a lead section to properly review. I'll still suspend the review until all of AFreshStart's revisions can be parsed out and reimplemented.

@AFreshStart:, I am certain that twsabin has already made great progress on this. Let me know if you need any additional help with the restoration and please ping me when the page has been properly restored and I can resume the GA review. On another note, that while technically having citations in the lead is generally frowned upon, WP:CITELEAD doesn't explicitly forbade them in controversial subjects. I'll leave that up for an open discussion for the time being. Etriusus 02:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't feel confident making any further restorations myself. Luckily, I don't think that it's a serious issue. Maybe a word here and there. Instead I made edits of my own, removing a little content from the lead, and also removed the cleanup tag (not useful; yes everyone can see that the lead is long). tw^sabin 02:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: continue the review

Based on everything written above, I think that the GA review can proceed (from scratch I guess [sad to see time was wasted {mine included}]) as if it had been nominated at this state. tw^sabin 02:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Fear not for your work has not gone unnoticed. @AFreshStart: is this alright with you? Etriusus 02:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This is totally fine by me 🙂👍 –AFreshStart (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Restarting GAN With that crisis averted, there appears to be a consensus to resume the review. Please disregard my previous critiques, I'll get a fresh set out within the next few days. Etriusus 21:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

@AFreshStart: What a legend! I will add comments here and there when possible, and hopefully don't get mad in the process :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by twsabin (post-restart)

Add (/restore) a fifth paragraph to the lead which summarizes the incidents section. One sentence may be enough. A five-paragraph lead (but not six-paragraph, which was the starting state) is also MOS compliant. This is a complex, multifaceted, topic. An average person has difficulty grappling with this topic (personal opinion, from personal experience). A connection to concrete events in recent memory is helpful. tw^sabin 19:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done I have added another paragraph, I hope it's readable and understandable. AFreshStart (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Psychloppos

I took the liberty of making some of the changes suggested by Etriusus :

I replaced "nefarious plot" with "worldwide cabal" (indeed, if it involves kidnapping and raping children, it is nefarious by implication so the adjective was unnecessary), removed "cool" and "essentially", replaced "8chan (later 8 kun)" by "8chan/8kun" and "Belief in QAnon theories" by "QAnon beliefs".

As for "ostensibly", it was I who wrote that word, precisely because I wished to avoid another occurence of "purportedly" (which is used a lot in the article). Do as you please if it's too "big" a word.

In 'appealing possibility', maybe we could replace 'appealing' with 'rewarding' ? Psychloppos (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I moved your comment here because this is the space for comments. The bottom portion is probably where the reviewer will make some significant comments later on such as passing/failing the GAN, but it would be even better if you could integrate your comments in the working area where suggestions are being made, including striking resolved items. tw^sabin 17:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos:, while I agree that 'ostensibly' is grammatically correct, it is a more technical word. This doesn't disqualify the article for GAN per se, but for readability the article, I recommended the change. In the end, I know I'm being a tad bit harsher than usual for this GA review but its just because of the controversial nature. Consider it my way of trying to idiotproof this page, but we can discuss it if you think it should be changed back. Thanks for helping with the GAN btw, you've been very busy with the copy editing and its very much appreciated. Etriusus 02:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Etriusus

@Psychloppos:, @AFreshStart:, and @Twsabin:. Excellent work to everyone involved. I will be giving the article one final pass before signing off and passing the GA review. I didn't see anything glaring yesterday but I'm going to double-check. This has been hard-fought, and I want to commend the hard work everyone has put into this GA review.

---

Review

Please don't place general comments in this section, place them above unless they are meant for article improvement

Refs

• Can you check the 3 Salon sources, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources these sources aren't super reliable and should mainly be used for attributed quotes.  Done (diffs): Now only used for direct quotes from individuals, and attributed opinion by Matthew Rozsa, the writer of the piece. The page numbers for the Mike Rothschild book are based off my e-book version, which may be different from the printed version. —AFreshStart (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Also check the Daily Beast Sources and the Buzzfeed Sources, not as bad per se, but are pushing it a bit.  Done (diff)

• Either a justification for reliability or replacement is necessary.

*Important Clarification: Some of these are attributed quotes but others are in line citations. The quotes are fine and can remain as is.

 Done Removed unnecessary links to Daily Beast and BuzzFeed. Daily Beast refs that I think are noteworthy (i.e. saying that the house resolution has no force of law, or that are direct quotes from individuals) have been attributed. —AFreshStart (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Images

• Is there anything more for the image "A QAnon flag based on the flag of the United States". The supposed author in the sourced article denies that it is QAnon related. I also cannot confirm its copyright status as 4.0 cc, the commons page implies 'own work' by the uploader but this contradicts the image's caption. Please point me in the direction of the original copyright info. Maybe a fair use rationale is more appropriate.
• All other images look good.

I have raised the issue at Commons, and can remove the image from the article in the meantime. I personally think deletion is better than fair use rationale – there is an abundance of Q-related imagery in this article, and I don't think this adds much to it. But I will admit that image copyright is not my forte. —AFreshStart (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw the thread on the commons. I agree that it probably doesn't meet the threshold of originality. If that is the case, I am fine with leaving the image on the page. I assume that it is used by QAnon, even if the original creator make up some other rational. Etriusus 03:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree. Striking through all this and marking as  Done – think that is everything now, unless I have missed something... —AFreshStart (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio

• an Earwig check didn't come up with anything that wasn't a quote. My computer practically melted its hard drive trying to check that much content.

Intro

• So, now the lead has the opposite problem. There's way too much chaff that needs to be cut out. Generally speaking MOS:LEAD prefers the lead to be 4 paragraphs at most. I get this is a complex, multifaceted issue but the lead does get into some very specific information that is unnecessary.

• Examples include: Bill Mitchell, White Squall, etc. I see you're building a timeline but a much simpler approach should be taken.
• The Twitter and Facebook segments can also be shortened substantially

• First sentence is run on and needs to be chopped up.
• "baselessly" puffery, reword to unsubstantiated or something similar
• 'JAnon' is mentioned once then never again, needs to be in the article's body.
• Some of QAnon's claims..., either specify the claims or reword. The sentence is too vague.
• (rebranded to 8kun in 2019) unnecessary, cut.
• "exhorted" is this the correct usage of the word?
• So MOS:LEAD leaves the citations in the intro up to a case by case basis, I am okay with leaving the article as is but I'm just making sure you're okay with this.
• Remove excessive 8chan links

 Done, the lead is now down to 4 paragraphs and I think it covers all the basics. There was a lot of information that needed including in the main text, which I did. Removed the Bill Mitchell bit totally as it didn't seem too relevant; if editors think this belongs in the article, happy to have it re-added in main text. Removed about the reaction to Biden winning the election as too recentist. Hopefully editors will agree that the article is in a much better place right now! —AFreshStart (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Background

• material which said it was run by a Jewish New York Specify what 'it' is.
• On October 30, 2016, Sentence as a whole is clunky, run on, and I feel like there's an 'and' missing somewhere. Needs rework.
• John Podesta's Who? This comes from nowhere.
• The Pizzagate section isn't a very good summary of events and feels disjoined. I'm not expecting an essay, just a concise (1-2 paragraph breakdown). The newspaper articles afterwards also don't seem to follow super well and come across as trivial info.

• Additionally, how is this relevant to QAnon? It somewhat touched upon in 'Influence of 4chan culture' but this needs to be more explicit.
• Move Influence of 4chan culture to before Anons.

 Done – a lot of this didn't seem relevant because the Pizzagate section was excerpted from the "Genesis" section of the Pizzagate article (also why it didn't mention the relation to QAnon as this was pre-Q). Completely rewrote the section so that it makes more sense in relation to the topic; apologies if this means that you will have to re-review this section again. —AFreshStart (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Reviewed, it looks substantially better Etriusus 22:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• link /pol/

Origin

• as "the calm before the storm" repetitive, needs rewording
• The three then created... This is a bit run-on, also mention the community if its relevent
• "Its guests.." reword to 'the channel's guests'
• "a Trump campaign publicist" who? are they noteworthy?
• "and later a revived 8chan" grammar (and later return to a revived...) Just a suggestion, the sentence reads a bit weird but I can't tell if it's due to its frankly wild subject matter or if there's a grammatical error.
• "Television host Sean Hannity..." I'm losing tract of the timeline a bit. Was Hannity the first to make it mainstream?
• marked the conspiracy theory's entry into the mainstream. This contradicts the first sentence in the paragraph.
• " least one ministry combining " who? This is a bit vague.
• mirrored increasing radicalization mirrored or coincided with? If it is mirrored reword to "has mirrored..".
• link pseudonymous
• "China had surpassed Russia" when did they surpass? it implies that Russia used to be ahead.
• Many Canadians have also propagated QAnon is there anything more to say on this?
• International following- what did I just read? A Delaware LLC? I am utterly lost for words.
• According to an investigation run on sentance
• link 'Public Religion Research Institute' and 'Interfaith Youth Core'

 Done, though I'm not sure how to clarify the Delaware LLC thing – they literally think that. As per the source: the Soviet Citizens ... believe that the Russian Federation is not a sovereign state, but a Delaware-registered offshore company controlled by global elites that illegally occupies the rightful territory of the Soviet Union. Just as the Reichsbürger groups think modern Germany is a corporation owned by the Allies of WWII. I can remove the Delaware bit as it's not that relevant really, but I'm not really sure how I can clarify something that makes no sense in the first place, sorry. Your reaction (below) is probably the same as mine right now... —AFreshStart (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No, no, its perfectly fine to leave the LLC thing in. I was commenting on the frankly insane subject matter. The prose is well done. I had to comment on that, I've seen some weird things on wikipedia but learning about the QAnon conspiracy is an absolute Rabbit Hole. Etriusus 01:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh definitely. Russia-is-really-a-Delaware-LLC is bizarre even by QAnon standards. And that's saying something. I really appreciate you having the courage to go through this GA review, definitely not run-of-the-mill stuff and I know some editors wouldn't touch this page with a 10-foot pole. —AFreshStart (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Claims

• QAnon "drops" are often cryptic, vague, and impossible to verify The origin section makes an allusion to what a drop is but it's not specifically defined.

  This would be great info in the intro

• ' and debunkers' This might be a POV issue/notability issue. Journalists debunking it is enough.
• "It is disseminated" The drops? QAnon as a whole? clarify
• "messiah sent by God" Why? Just why? (Just a comment on my end, nothing to edit)
• the essence of the conspiracy 'has said' or 'has described' the essence..., reword
• " used the pandemic" reword to "have used"
• "MMS, or Miracle Mineral Solution" are they connected with ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine sulfate at all?
• I'd recommend moving the evolution of Q's claims to before the failed predictions subsection.
• "allegedly coded messages." Missing a source
• 'Data from the...' Is this necessary info?
• Does the 'save the children' subsection belong here? It feels tangentially related, consider merging it with the pizza gate section.

 Done – specified that a Q drop is just a post on 4chan, later 8chan/8kun, and added this to lead. I was unsure about "debunkers" and have changed it, although the source does use the term. Rmv "it is disseminated" – I haven't had a chance to read the whole paper but I've reworded that to reflect the source.

MMS is unrelated to ivermectin/hydroxychloroquine – it's basically bleach (chlorine dioxide). Though there are a lot of Q-quacks selling all of these as "cures" for just about anything (according to Miracle Mineral Supplement's WP article, it claims to cure HIV, malaria, all forms of flu and hepatitis, colds, autism, acne, and cancer. And all this is BC [before COVID]). Just your typical bleach panacea, available in oral or enema form. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Question: I significantly restructured this section, instigated by this cleanup tag. The actual content changes were cosmetic adjustments, needed to reorder things basically. Further review needed here? tw^sabin 22:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Identity of Q

• ' wrote Q's posts during different periods' what time period?
• Q did not have another means of communication reword- Q did not have any other known (or verified) means of communication
• This apparent conflict of interest, What conflict of interest? Sentance is run on and confusing, needs to be rewritten
• 'who stated on camera, ' use a blockquote
• ' similar conspiratorial movement ' what movement?

 Done The source doesn't specify which time period, so I added the quote that Q's "distinct signatures clearly correspond to separate periods in time and different online forums" (which is from the report). Hope this is okay. Re-written about the "conflict of interest", tried to clarify the situation, and added quotes from Brennan. Removed the part about a "similar conspiratorial movement" – this seemed to be the author's opinion on media owned by Viktor Medvedchuk promoting conspiracy theories. But his article doesn't mention this. And it's unclear how this is a "movement". —AFreshStart (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Analysis

• not only the end of the world... This reads like a quote but its not in quotations. May need rewording or attribution
• link feeling thermometer
• ' A September 2020 Pew... ' Reads weird, just say 'In Sep. 2020, a Pew..."
• although anti-Semitic references appeared in the first few tweets repetitive info, questionably NPOV

Done —AFreshStart (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Appeal

• Part of its appeal is its game-like quality, Is there an authority on this? Reads like OR.
• Travis View, a researcher who studies QAnon... This is a great first sentence for the paragraph, move it upfront.
• Some QAnon believers realize that they have been isolated from loved ones, and suffer loneliness. This leads some to abandon the beliefs, but for others reinforces the benefits of belonging to the cult This is a POV nightmare, needs serious rewording.
• ' societal uncertainty' specify what uncertainty is specific to QAnon
• 'between them a cover.; reword
• Such a response to a failed prophecy.. Reads like OR, who said this? I assume the psychologist later mentioned
• This phenomenon is being seen among some QAnon believers. unnecessary, already implied
• 'View echoes the concern' State his full name, there are a lot of names and it can get confusing

• Also, check the tense in this paragraph. It is in the present tense and should be in past

• 'under Trump's protection.' citation missing

 Done–AFreshStart (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Incidents

• 'Near Philadelphia's Convention Center,' and 'Bumper stickers' This is questionably notable. Condense or cut.
• 'and Trump tweeted about it' reword to be encyclopedic
• ' most secure in American history' put the quote if you have it
• The sovereign citizen movement developed this claim was it just the sovereign citizens? Merge this with the preceding sentence
• put U.S. Capitol attack before Lin wood

 Done —AFreshStart (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Reactions

• 'anti-abortion group' Per WP:COMMONNAME, change to pro life  Not done: See revert by CollectiveSolidarity. While "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are the common names, Wikipedia prefers to use "anti-abortion" and "abortion-rights movements" respectively (see their talk pages). —AFreshStart (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Rabochaya Gazeta" Is there an English link?
• ' /r/The Donald subreddit' is no longer active, it was shut down after Jan 6th, making mention here or earlier wouldn't be a bad idea
• ' According to the memo.." blockquote here
• 'An underreported QAnon-related...' Run-on sentences
• another factor driving the intensity of this threat I feel like this warrants a bt more explanation
• At a Trump reelection rally Does this qualify as FBI/terrorism? It may be in the wrong subsection
• Republican politicians and organizations- wayyyy too much detail here. This can likely be pared down to 2-3 paragraphs.
• Trump and connected individuals- no need to go into excruciating detail about every tweet.

• This is probably a better place for Lin Wood and Sidney Powell

• He told a reporter... Unnecessary, cut sentence
• Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani... Did he play any larger role in this?
• 'Suggestions for making progress..." run on sentance
• But merchandise relating to QAnon combine this with the previous Etsy sentance. It strangely reads passive-aggressively as is.

 Done, although I have not used the English link for Rabochaya Gazeta as enwiki page is a different newspaper by the same name. But tried to link better using interlanguage links. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Review Pt 2

Here are my notes now that the article has been given its first pass, all in all, excellent work to everyone involved in c/e and refining the page substantially. I didn't know 'anti-abortion' was an exception to WP:COMMONNAME it can remain as is then. I plan to get these out within the next day or so, its already apparent this pass will be a lot faster than the last one. Etriusus 23:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Intro

• Move the infobox to the top, the image above the infobox feels crowded. The image can be moved more towards the body of the article.

Besides that minor edit, this section is impressively done.

I did the other thing which is moving the sidebar to the body based on a rationale that it didn't really serve it's real purpose as a navigational aid at the top (only directs to Capitol attack-related topics but not to QAnon-related topics such as the actual QAnon daughter articles; there are a few). Hope that's fine. tw^sabin 01:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. Much better than having a hanging info box. Etriusus 06:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Background

• 'Q referred...' reword, 'Q has referred to..."
• The compound has become.. Be a bit clearer that this is the origin of the adrenochrome elixir idea.  Done

• "and "adrenochrome harvest" by murdering a" this is also mentioned later on the in article and rexplained. Needs clean-up as a whole

 Not done – I removed this, but my removal was manually undone by Psychloppos. I have to say I agree with Psychloppos' reasoning – the exact nature of the alleged "harvesting" is particularly gruesome and unique within this particular conspiracy theory, so I think it ought to be mentioned. −AFreshStart (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is my subsequent take at this review suggestion: Special:Diff/1072465284. It consists of moving this content from 'Background'—as it is not background (it turned out that, despite 'Background' being a reasonably well-written section, much of the content in it was not chronologically in the background, i.e. preceding QAnon)—to 'Claims'. I am now pretty convinced that this makes both the 'Background' and 'Claims' better (more of what they should be about), but the adrenochrome detail in the 'Origin and spread' h2 may be a little too much, when the main place to cover this should be 'Claims'. However, I think that this is probably good enough. Moving a little more from Origin and spread to Claims would be a technicality. I'd support marking this as done. tw^sabin 22:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Marked as  Done. —AFreshStart (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see this was resolved. I didn't mean for the entire section to be cut out. I meant that the topic was covered twice without any additional benefit to the article. Combining these elements together and cutting down on repetitive info is what I was getting at, sorry if I was unclear. Etriusus 23:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: I'm glad that you understood my reasoning. The idea of a gang of perverts murdering children for a substance contained in their blood is revolting per se and would normally not need to be explained twice. But the particular act contained in this alleged video was so cartoonishly gruesome and evil (involving a major political figure, no less) that it has to be included here (just as it is included in the Pizzagate page). Not only is this outlandish, even by QAnon standards : we have to keep in mind that it is an early QAnon rumor (the theory was only a few months old when this surfaced) which implies that instead of discrediting QAnon early on, it actually helped them gain traction. This means that this is exactly the kind of things that the QAnon crowd (at least the hardcore followers) will believe and appreciate. It makes the inclusion of this info all the more necessary. Psychloppos (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• 'someone' please specify who. Is this portion necessary? The current prose technically doesn't link blood libel and qanon.

Done. This was substantially reworked by the content being integrated with the Antisemitism section, and the inadequate "someone" wording was removed. The reference was reused (Bloom & Moskalenko 2021, pp. 30–31, Chapt. 1.). tw^sabin 20:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think Blood libel and Satanic ritual abuse require its own sections. Perhaps just making mention in the antisemitic and pizza gate (respectively) sections would suffice.

Done. tw^sabin 20:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Origin

• 'other outlandish, sometimes gruesome rumors' WP:Puffery

Done. tw^sabin 20:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• 'nefarious' puffery

Claims

• the format here is very messy, needs clean-up

There were changes here. I think it's okay now (per MOS:EMBED). Please un-resolve this item if you still think it's messy tw^sabin 19:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• '(later 8kun).' repeat info
• 'world is essentially controlled' cut the word 'essential'
• As seen by QAnon followers.... run on sentance
• Belief in QAnon theories.. CE this sentance

Analysis

• MOS:SANDWICH

• How necessary are both pics to the overall article?

Done: Special:Diff/1072847141 (see summary). tw^sabin 19:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• 'ostensibly' a bit of a big word, proportedly works fine

I see what you did there Etriusus 04:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• 'cool' puffery
• is there a reason Antisemitism is under a different subheader format?

Yes, antisemitism is a h4 subsection of the h3 Derivative and recurring elements, it being one of those elements. tw^sabin 17:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, thx Etriusus 20:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• 'and QAnon researchers' experts on qanon or member of qanon who do research?
• 'the appealing possibility' puffery, cut appealing
• QAnon follower Liz Crokin... run on sentance

Done. Special:Diff/1072856049 tw^sabin 20:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Some Q followers became... Notable info? If yes, reword, it reads too casual.

Done – Special:Diff/1072870523. It's important information because there isn't much analysis on the psychology in the article. Switched to quote of source (book) to compensate for the seemingly casual tone. tw^sabin 22:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Incidents

• MOS:SANDWICH

• I think the infobox should stay but the other pic should be moved. Maybe move the infobox up a little so it fits in the section.

Reactions

• MOS:SANDWICH

• move the patch image, not relevant to this segment

• Only one mention of parler. Is there anything more thats relevant?
• 'claims about Chief Justice' What claims?
• August 13. specify August 13. 2021
• 'A QAnon flag' this image would be much better up in the Flynn section
• Removal of related content-- I think one paragraph per platform would be a better layout here. With one final paragrpah covering other platforms that don't have as much coverage/any conclusions.

 Not done Content is chronological currently. Sorting per site would lose the chronology, and it's really the chronology that's important here because it positions QAnon centrally (what the escalating consequence for the QAnon online communities was), instead of centering on the platforms themselves (what each platform did – and could create an optic of comparing platforms one with another to see which one was the toughest on QAnon content, and that's not the WP:DUE angle). Struck provisionally, can discuss. tw^sabin 22:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the section was restructured somewhat. Some of the segments were out initially out of chronological order but the issue seems resolved. I see the reasoning in keeping it in order, back when my initial comment was still relevant, there was a ton of repeat info that was confusing to read. The passage now reads substantially better and the timeline is very neatly done. Also, the 'migration to alt tech' subsection fits very well here. Very Good Job. Etriusus 02:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

---

This review will likely take a long time to both complete and to respond to. For the purposes of giving this topic the proper attention, I will be waving the 7 day time constraint (within reason of course). As suggestions are cleaned up, use the  Done template, a strikethrough, or some other means of indicating the recommendation is resolved. Etriusus 02:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

An accurate description of me after reading this page link

GA checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Yes

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Article passes GA review. Good work!

@AFreshStart:, following a herculean effort, the page has passed the GA review. I did some last-minute clean-up, feel free to check my work and revert anything you disagree with. This is still room for improvement (including a number of invisible templates for further expansion) but this is outside the scope of a GA review. Should the page get much larger, there will likely need to be a split. Etriusus 03:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, just to be aware of: Newsweek. Newsweek isn't a particularly reliable source so it likely can't be added but I'm just mentioning it so it's on your radar. If a more reliable source picks this up, then perhaps it can be included.

Newsweek isn't reliable ?? (I'm asking this seriously because I've used it several times and I find this worrying) Psychloppos (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• QAnon USA Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Cult label

Calling QAnon a cult seems new. While I certainly consider it one of the most crazy conspiracy theories out there, something being labeled a "cult" needs much better sourcing than this. A cult is more than just a wildly implausible ideology - it also (at least usually) involves a specific organization that exerts control and threat of social punishment over its members. I will say based on my personal experience that this is a not a term to cheapen by applying to conspiracy theories that lack a clear hierarchy, no matter how crazy.

Of the three sources cited to support the label of it being a cult, two do not support the label in their own voice, so they can't be used to support wikivoice. One of them, NPR, explicitly says "some researchers", so why is Wikipedia siding with those researchers over others? CNN only uses it when quoting prosecutors, who are not disinterested scholars of sociology or religion. Their assertion that it is "commonly referred" to as such raises the question - by whom?

Unless sources appear that scholars of cults widely refer to QAnon as such, the term should be removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, have you read the first paragraph of QAnon#Appeal? You appear to be commenting on the lead in isolation to the rest of the article. Please remember that the lead is only a summary of the body, and that only a minimum of citations should be included in the lead per WP:LEADCITE.

Also, I have looked at the archives and found a recent discussion about calling QAnon a cult: Talk:QAnon/Archive 4#What can I do to make the article more neutral?, where a similar concern to yours was resolved by keeping the description as a cult in the lead, albeit attributed to experts. (The specific wording that resulted from that discussion is a bit different than the current wording.) tw^sabin 17:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(reply is to first paragraph, still looking over second) I have, and that does not include the claim that it is a cult. Being "like" a cult is not the same thing. "Cultish quality" and "a possible emerging religious movement" are not the same thing. Claims that are not directly supported in the body should not appear in the lead regardless of LEADCITE. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I restored the wording that resulted from the already-had discussion. It's just about the attribution. Please see the edit summary: Special:Diff/1071452235. Pinging AFreshStart to comment. tw^sabin 18:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement, but the attribution could be better. Right now just saying "experts" implies there is widespread agreement among experts, and I'm not seeing evidence of that. And experts in what?

Regarding the sources linked in that previous discussion: This is by a theatre-maker and...occasional broadcaster, critic and trade union feminist. None of these show expertise in a relevant academic field. Her book on internet cults is not by an academic publisher and seems to be using "cult" in the imprecise everyday sense. This is an opinion article, so WP:RSOPINION applies and so we normally would not use it for claims of fact. The author is a professor of practice at the Middlebury Institute’s Center on Terrorism, Extremism and Counterterrorism and a senior research fellow at the Soufan Center. Is this a relevant field for defining "cult" (as opposed to, say, "terrorism")? Why aren't we citing academic sources or at least normal reporting rather than op-eds? The third source is by Steven Hassan and is also an opinion article. I don't think it could be disputed that he's a relevant expert, but the sources in his Wikipedia article show that some other experts don't agree with his views about what groups are cults.

This coupled with NPR saying, "Our copy editors [at the Post] are questioning whether we should call it a 'conspiracy theory' or an 'extremist ideology,' " Timberg tells Fresh Air. "Some researchers think it's a cult. Some think it's an alternative reality game", makes me think that it would be best to at the very least describe this as "some researchers" or "some experts". It could probably be improved more from there too. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree about "some experts"; going to make that edit. I think the terrorism professor is a valid expert here because of the well known and researched relationship between cults and extremism/terrorism. His opinion is not cited as fact, it's still relayed as an opinion. "(Some) experts have described" appropriately carries this over. tw^sabin 18:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it probably should be changed to 'some experts' or 'aspects of a cult' to more accurately reflect the sources. —AFreshStart (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC) (edited – I previously said I would expand on the cult label, but I don't think this is necessary any more) —AFreshStart (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Epstein

@Slatersteven and AFreshStart: my two cents about this in case you want to discuss the matter further. I personally wouldn't oppose the inclusion of Epstein, though I think the text could be trimmed a bit. I would have just written something like "The death of Jeffrey Epstein was the subject of conspiracy theories, some of which brought people to QAnon. Trump is seen by QAnon believers as the only person fighting this underground trade in children for sex" We don't need to include the mention of the British royals here, and I'd say that the mention of Trump's ties with Epstein might be a little unfair : if I'm not mistaken, Epstein knew Trump as he knew pretty much every wealthy socialite in New York. So linking Trump to Epstein is kind of like saying the Beatles were connected to Jimmy Savile's crimes just because they hanged out a bit with him in the 1960s. (anyway, if we used QAnon logic, we might imagine that Trump, being super smart, knew about Epstein's crimes and was pretending to be his friend just so he could monitor him) Psychloppos (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This wording is better, it was more your tone I objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: not "my" tone, as I didn't write the original text. I'm merely inserting myself into the disagreement between you and AFreshStart. ;) Psychloppos (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the person who I reverted.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Happy to re-include your suggested trimmed version. I don't agree with your analogy - it would only work if one of the Beatles said Sir Jimmy Savile liked "beautiful women... many of them are on the younger side", as Trump did with Epstein, or if said Beatle subsequently denied knowing Savile despite evidence to the contrary, or had numerous accusations of sexual assault against them. Plus, there's this. But, alas, we are in original-research territory here, as none of this is covered by the source. It does, however, say: The irony of Trump’s documented association with Jeffrey Epstein—a convicted trafficker and sexual abuser—as well as a number of lawsuits filed against Trump by women and girls—accusing him of harassment, misconduct, or rape—is lost on the QAnon followers. The latter is probably more noteworthy given the context, so I don't mind the Epstein friendship stuff being cut. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven, what don't you like about my 'tone'? Not trying to be rude; I just don't see the issue. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: the analogy with Jimmy Savile and the Beatles was half sarcastic. What I meant by that is essentially that linking Trump to Epstein's sexual abuse just because they knew each other and because of Trump's uncouthness is somewhat unfair. And anyway, QAnon adherents would probably say that the sexual assault allegations against Trump, just like the tax fraud allegations, are just a super smart front meant to divert attention from his titanic battle against the forces of evil. Psychloppos (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not think we needed to say "who was linked with a number of high-profile politicians, academics, scientists, entertainers and members of the British royal family (i.e. Prince Andrew) " as this is a kind of guilt by association and the use of "was labeled a suicide" implies it might not have been.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos: Oh, I did know that! Apologies if my response seemed harsh, I just think that the two situations are different. But I'm happy to leave this out of the article anyway. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Ah okay, I got you. I think the link with high-profile individuals is relevant when we're discussing how this links to the conspiracy theory of elite sex trafficking (which reflects what the source says), but I can understand the guilt by association part. Again, I'm happy to leave this out if editors prefer, but just trying to explain my edits (though I agree that the suicide bit was worded badly). —AFreshStart (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of what one thinks of Epstein's circle of friends, and prince Andrew in particular, I think that they are best left out the QAnon article since as far as I know they are completely unconnected to its subject (unless it turns out that British QAnon advocates consider that prince Andrew heads the cabal or, on the contrary, is the hero who will save the world from those rascally cannibalistic pedophiles). Psychloppos (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem with linking to a "high-profile individual" is who do we pick? Why single out (for example) a member of the Royal family, why not Bill Clinton, Les Wexner or Pope John Paul II It implies that the link is stronger, different.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and AFreshStart: I have added the trimmed version, with some changes. Should you want to make further changes, please do as you see fit. Psychloppos (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

QAnon[a] (/ˈkjuː.əˌnɒn/) is an American far-right political conspiracy theory and mass political movement. It is centered on false claims made by an anonymous individual or individuals (linked definitively to Paul Furber by linguistic analysis), Wikidemia21 (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The Furber information is included in the article, but I do not think it is due for the lead sentence. If it was, words like "definitively" are not neutral and do not reflect the source (which says that the conclusions are credible and likely, but not definitive). —AFreshStart (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Detail

@Twsabin and AFreshStart: just FYI, yesterday I added to the Jim Watkins some detail about Watkins supporting the Pizzagate claims about the existence of a child sex ring, though he did not believe that a pizzeria was involved. At first glance I'd say this is pretty consistent with the way "Q" handled Pizzagate, which he never mentioned by name although he supported many of its claims. I did not use this here as I wished to avoid original research, but IMHO it is one of the many elements which may fuel the suspicion that the elder Watkins is Q, or one of the Qs. I hope you'll find that interesting in case you hadn't noticed. If you have any idea how this little detail may be used here without falling into WP:OR, it might be useful. Psychloppos (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos:I don't have any particular thoughts on your specific comment, but it's good to note in this section that NYT essentially named R. Watkins as the second Q today. The image of his father was removed as the section is more centered on R. Watkins now and text wasn't long enough to support two standard-size images (the multi image solution was a little ungainly too). I remember seeing from you somewhere (in an edit summary probably) that both images are due. I'd have agreed strongly with that up to this point. Now a GAN item is resolved. Contest? tw^sabin 19:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: I don't know. I personally wouldn't have removed Jim Watkins' photo since his role in QAnon seems to be pretty central. It would be quite surprising to find out that Ron Watkins has been Q without his father knowing, and it is also plausible that both Watkinses have written as Q at some point (even if Ron was the main person behind the account). If you think that using both images posed a real problem, I won't be arguing over this, though. Maybe the Jim Watkins photo could go into the "multiple individuals" section ? That would still leave Ron's photo as the one illustrating the "Watkinses family" section. Psychloppos (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Both were important. Regardless, R. Watkins is more central for explicitly being Q, according to NYT citing new evidence. I think that it would only make sense for the photos to be attached to the same section. I think it's a real, but an essentially technical, problem due to there not being enough text in the section to support that much visual content (a banal reason I'll admit). If the section was longer, the images could be staggered. I propose leaving this alone for a while, remembering the issue, and if the section is eventually expanded (in a due manner – likely, as there is continuous coverage of the topic), J. Watkins' image could be added back. tw^sabin 20:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: I didn't think having both photos made it particularly difficult to read the section, but maybe that's just me. What can I say, I just like having loads of pictures. 😃 As I said, I think it's a pity not to use the Jim Watkins photo, but I won't throw a fit about this. Psychloppos (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't strongly object to both images being included. If you revert my change and propose the previous, horizontal tiling, formatting as the alternative resolution of the review item, I won't contest. Alternatively, we can leave it like this for a while, and rethink it. tw^sabin 21:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: I think we can afford to wait a little bit and see if the text expands, thereby giving us enough room to put back the photo. Psychloppos (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: FYI, I've just moved the content related to JFK Jr from the "Disillusionment" section to the "Other beliefs" section. Let me know if that's a problem for you. I've left the Kennedy prediction in the list here because that prediction is so notable (the gathering in Dallas attracted a lot of media attention) and unique that mentioning it twice may not be a problem. I thought we also need to include this in the list of predictions about Trump coming back to power, as it is - by far - the most famous one. You may remove it from the list if you think that's overkill, though. Psychloppos (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos: Seems good, I made some minor changes myself, mainly desectioning. tw^sabin 14:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: ok, I thought that subsections might be useful for readability, and also because COVID is important and the thing about JFK jr is so remarkable (for lack of a better word), but that's fine by me. Psychloppos (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos:Sections don't serve to signal to readers "this is important", but simply to break up text and make it navigable. If sections are short and all them fit the topic of the higher level section, the content should be desectioned. It's a completely "automatic" thing under MOS:OVERSECTION. tw^sabin 17:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: fine, I was thinking mostly about readability anyway. Psychloppos (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

flurry of edits

In recent days there have been a flurry of edits by 2-3 editors that have proceeded at a dizzying pace. I encourage these editors to make liberal use of edit summaries and to tag edits as minor when appropriate. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Sorry if I caused you any inconvenience. Psychloppos (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos: It's not about soibangla per se, and their possibly being inconvenienced, it's about a bigger picture. Having more summaries in the history will go a long way to send a message that, yes, the article is being continuously improved—just about making it easier for everyone to see that good work is being done. Edit history is Wikipedia's "proof of work". So consider triaging your edits wrt summaries: (1) one end of the spectrum: substantial change in the article (addition, removal, reorganization, significant rewording etc.)–write the minimally acceptable edit summary such as "add info"/"add image"/"rm failed verification"/"expand w source"/"reorganize"/"rewrite sentence"/"section/desection" etc. (2) other end of the spectrum: edit consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content—just mark it as WP:MINOR w/o summary; (3) everything in between: you've probably seen it... "ce", "+", "-", "style", "trim", "join/split para", etc.–write something. That being said, I endorse your edits, and it's easy to see from wider diffs that your edits are completely rational and justified. Regards tw^sabin 19:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

But I mean, yeah, I see now that you had already begun marking edits as minor, and using summaries, so I think we're just fine. tw^sabin 19:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: ok, I understand, thank you. I tend to make a lot of small corrections as I'm often unhappy about my wording, so I'll try to keep that in mind. I initially thought that the problem lay in the sheer number of my edits - that they were so numerous it had become an annoyance for the people who have this page on their watchlist. Psychloppos (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos: Can you check this edit of mine (diff)? I think that it's an improvement, but I'd like to be more sure. tw^sabin 22:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: I'll double-check later but at first glance I think your edit makes perfect sense. The "Frazzledrip" story which illustrates this part of the theory should IMHO remain as it is in the "Origins and spread" since, as I just mentioned here, it came quite early in the history of QAnon and probably helped it gain traction. The only problem with your edit is that, now that you have moved the text, the concept of "adrenochrome harvest" appears first in the "Origins" section without being explained beforehand, so people reading the page chronologically will not understand what it is. I'm going to try and fix this. Psychloppos (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Please do. tw^sabin 23:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: done I hope that's not too explanatory (sorry, I forgot to add a summary for my second edit ! ) Psychloppos (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine. Don't worry too much about the summaries. For your receptiveness to feedback and demonstrable flexibility I award you this other recommendation of mine: don't put a space before a colon (like this 'X : Z') 🙂 tw^sabin 23:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: Duly noted, thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos: We're in a pretty good spot now. Let's stop editing for cca three days so the GA reviewer can have an easier time closing the review. If important news occur we'll include that. tw^sabin 19:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok ! :) Psychloppos (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Duplicated material

@Psychloppos: Hello. I think your recent edit duplicated the paragraph starting with "QAnon's precepts and vocabulary – such as" as it now appears twice in two different locations. I'm not sure where you intended to move it so I will leave your edit alone. Endwise (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: woops, thanks for letting me know. I'll have a look and try to fix this. Psychloppos (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: Just checked. Actually, the content already appeared twice in the page before my edit. I hadn't noticed that my edit was bringing together very similar contents, including near-identical language. Since you brought it to my attention, I just took the opportunity to remove redundant content. Psychloppos (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Paul Furber and Ron Watkins

There's actually very little doubt that these two guys, in succession, wrote the Q messages. The article greatly underplays the weight of the evidence against them. TheScotch (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The recent stylometry evidence which points to Furber and Ron Watkins is still only a few days old. It might be prudent to wait and see if that evidence shifts the opinion or confidence of other sources on QAnon before going gung-ho and having Wikipedia lead the charge on confidence in the theory. Endwise (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Frederick Brennan had said in 2020 that Furber was probably the first Q, with Ron Watkins taking over (perhaps forcibly) after a few months. The recent study just basically confirmed his theory. Psychloppos (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I just meant that the recent studies were reason to be confident in what was originally speculated. Endwise (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. What I meant is that the fact that the info has been basically public for almost two years is another reason not to rush things. :) Psychloppos (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow that. "Don't rush things" because we've already known for a long time? If we've already known for a long time, then how could we possibly rush even if we wanted to? That ship sailed years ago. At this point it's only a question of how belated and sluggardly we want to be. What particularly bugs me is that article shrouds the whole matter in an aura of mystery, when it's really, and transparently obviously, a very simple childish fraud. TheScotch (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It's been suspected for a long time, but only recently has actual, credible evidence come forward. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the article underplays the evidence against the Watkinses and this Furber fellow. IMO the current version of this page presents in a fairly comprehensive way what we currently know about their involvement and how the evidence gradually emerged. We probably won't know much more until new evidence emerges, or one of these people confesses everything outright, or until they are all indicted and convicted (which would also settle the matter decisively).

Please note that I'm not trying to protect their reputation or anything: during the good article review I added the fact that Brennan had theorized in 2020 that Furber was the original Q, shortly before the NY Times published its piece about the linguistic analysis (Furber was already mentioned in the page as an early QAnon promoter, but if memory serves, the connection to Q was missing). Psychloppos (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

As HandThatFeeds noted, it was long suspected so not a surprise, but there's even more evidence to support it. As long as the article mentions this in some way it's probably fine, —PaleoNeonate – 20:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The lady did protest to much I would say with Shakespeare after seeing Ron Watkins repeated denials of not being and never having been Q in the documentary Q: Into the Storm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.78.240.8 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

PRRI polling on increased QAnon support

• Smith, David (February 24, 2022). "Belief in QAnon has strengthened in US since Trump was voted out, study finds". The Guardian.

Should this be included? —AFreshStart (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with a sentence about this, the source is also an acceptable secondary source and this allows to avoid original research quoting individual primary sources. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: As this apparently hadn't been added to the page, I took the liberty to add it in the "polling and demographics" section. Psychloppos (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Confirming that it's added, it also seems like a fair summary. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"Jesus" Photo

How do we know this is supposed to be Jesus, as opposed to any other bearded man. This looks suspiciously like original research. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The picture is an obvious copy of https://natsab.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/jesus-christ-70.jpg?w=476&h=600, a famous painting of Jesus. You can use Visual Search on Google and see that it is in fact Jesus, and there are various articles on it. A Western depiction of Jesus, yes, but it was definitely the intention of this person to portray Jesus. 2600:1005:A010:F525:3180:4E9D:A8AC:4F7F (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Where can we read QAnon directly?

Is there a URL for the archives? This should be in a box at the top, or else linked at the bottom. So we can do our own research! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.37.206.174 (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

recent Q message about Cassidy Hutchinson

Any good sources about the most recent message from "Q" regarding Cassidy Hutchinson? Should probably be included in the article, given the notable current events. Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, the "validity" of this post seems to be in question:

https://mashable.com/article/q-qanon-conspiracy-theory-returns-8kun

Thoughts? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Socks

This article was promoted to GA by a sock, User:AFreshStart. I think that a GA review is necessary to ensure that the article actually met the criteria. Notifying GA reviewers of the article, User:Etriusus and User:Twsabin. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Twsabin is also a sock as well. Seems like socks go around in circles... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: I'm also also pinging @Psychloppos:, who also had a hand in promoting the page. While I stand by the rather lengthy (2 1/2 week and 3 editors collectively working on the page) review the page went through, learning that 2 socks had a role in the page is a concerning development. While a cursory glance at User:AFreshStart's GA's doesn't raise any immediate flags, it may be prudent to review these pages as well. Seeing the potential scope of this issue (9 GA's), it may be prudent to escalate this to WP:ANI. Etriusus (Talk) 15:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I may be wrong but my understanding is that AFreshStart, rather than a sock, was a banned user who came back under another name. I have no idea why he was banned in the first place, as I never had any interaction with him before I worked on that page. IMHO, the concern should be about the quality of the page itself. Sock or not, as far as I can tell he did a pretty thorough job on that article. And anyway he was not alone in that GA business, as I also worked quite a bit on the article at that time. (I should also mention that I have no opinion whatsoever about AFreshStart's other good articles, which I did not even look at) Psychloppos (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos: This is one of those rare cases where I actually don't know if we have a policy around this kind of stuff. User:AFreshStart was making legitimate contributions to wikipedia and I cannot find anything that would outright indicate that GA review for everything is immediately necessary, you're right in that we should look at the article not the user. That being said, I've seen WP:ANI discussions vary on how to approach these sort of situations. Worst case, we may need to take it article by article, but I agree that renoming all 9 articles is a bit nuclear in response. I'll mention it at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and see what the admins there think.

On a personal note, I would prefer to not renom Qanon but I still think an admin should at least check this out. Etriusus (Talk) 16:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not really the place for this discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I moved the discussion here. Etriusus (Talk) 17:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Where to read Q drops?

There should be a link to them in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.37.159.64 (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

That would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:Fringe theories. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"Patriots in control" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Patriots in control and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 4#Patriots in control until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 04:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

QANON

There really is no QANON. There is Q and there is ANON. There also is a lot of misunderstanding about how to understand the "drops" Most of what is stated is from sources that seem unfamiliar as to how Q and the Anons function so the majority of what's stated comes from hear say. 142.154.139.36 (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

As has been discussed previously on this talk page, QAnon supporters used to be fine calling themselves just that, until Q drop 4881 in late 2020, after which the term was subsequently retconned and supporters seem to pretend it was never used. Endwise (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

My dude that is a Qultist you're replying to, they always give themselves away repeating that same line, "There is Q and there are ANONs, there is no QANON." (except this one messed it up because ANON should be plural, nice job champ.)

So they literally repeat this line like trained sheep, giving themselves away and stating that "Q" is a thing, "ANON" is a thing, but "QANON", what on Earth could "QANON" possibly refer to?

A portmanteau of the two used to describe the phenomenon as a whole including its sociopolitical impacts?

No, that cant be it, some mysteries are beyond mortal men, like how a bunch drones repeat the same line over and over again without even knowing it means like a trained response like they were taught, could EVER have the audacity to call anyone else a sheep. 103.169.140.155 (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The user who posted the message:

"There really is no QANON. There is Q and there is ANON. There also is a lot of misunderstanding about how to understand the "drops" Most of what is stated is from sources that seem unfamiliar as to how Q and the Anons function so the majority of what's stated comes from hear say. 142.154.139.36 (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)"

Is a Qanon believer pretending to be a neutral concerned party in order to get changes made to the article. They did this through seemingly innocuous questions but gave themselves away by quoting a line that Qanon believers exclusively use i.e. "There really is no QANON. There is Q and there is ANON." 103.169.140.155 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's how it got started. The original poster designating themselves as "Q" can no longer be verified as being the originator of most QAnon content today. For example we have a self-proclaimed "Queen" in Canada right now who is amassing a following - and she is both a Woman of Colo(u)r and doesn't conform to 'gender norms' in terms of 'outward femininity'. So there's that for the present day evolution...which goes far beyond some anonymous liar on 4chan.--SinoDevonian (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Extra need to get it right

Apparently as part of its "anti-disinformation" program, Youtube is dropping banners in front of QAnon related videos referring people to this Wikipedia article as the source for fact checking.

I dont know if that is a responsibility Wikipedia wants to take on, or if its appropriate, but there it is. Not only the general Wikipedia base, but all of Youtube is counting on this information being accurate. 67.220.13.96 (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Still current tense?

"Followers of the conspiracy theory say that Trump IS secretly fighting the cabal of p---s, and will conduct mass arrests and executions of thousands"

is the present tense still applicable? or should it be "Followers of the conspiracy theory believED and spread propaganda that Trump WAS secretly fighting the cabal of p---s, and THAT HE WOULD conduct mass arrests and executions of thousands " 67.220.13.96 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

fixed EvergreenFir (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump reposts a QAnon “intel drop”

Should this be mentioned? Bunch of coverage from RS at the moment.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-qanon-truth-social-meltdown-1234584590/amp/ Screendeemer (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Too recent, it'll probably vanish into the ether within days when nothing happens. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump posts something stupid, not exactly news. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Violence

Should we mention QAnon's association with violence in the first sentence of the lead, and if so how? Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

QAnon' The term originally referred to the anonymous poster "Q", but the, (ADD:AMERICAN FAR LEFT) media ... ]].

It (ADD : IT IS PRESUMED TO HAVE) originated in the American far-right political sphere in 2017. QAnon centers on : REMOVE :"FALSE" claims, ADD: (PRESUMED TO BE FALSE CLAIMS ) made by an anonymous individual or individuals known as "Q". Bigjohnyappleseed (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I ask that you please consider these more neutral changes to this article. It is currently biased towards the "leftist" viewpoints Bigjohnyappleseed (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We follow reliable sources, and this is how they describe qanon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

De-Hoaxing -- categorization

There is discussion in the archives as to whether Qanon is a hoax. (No conclusions were reached.) And the present article has mentions of "hoax" in some of the RS. But does the RS actually say Qanon is a "deliberately fabricated falsehood masquerading as truth"? Or is the RS expressing its own opinion to disparage Qanon? Either way putting Qanon into a Hoax category is incorrect. Per WP:CAT we need to see the "essential—defining—characteristics of a topic" and hoaxing does not fulfill this requirement. – S. Rich (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a matter for debate. It is largely accepted that the QAnon conspiracy theory is a falsehood, and that it was deliberately created for propaganda purposes. So one may say that the "hoax" category is justified. On the other hand, we don't know yet if the people who originated this conspiracy theory believed in their own claims, and many QAnon influencers seem to actually believe in the theory. Psychloppos (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

That is kind of the problem, even if it started as a hoax, it is clear a lot of people who now spread it belive it. Hell some people are killing in its name. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a disinformation campaign, using black propaganda. I would not call it a hoax, as propaganda techniques are not hoaxes. Dimadick (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

Add to the end of Further Reading a new source:

Westmark, Colton R. and Adam M. McMahon. “Identifying QAnon Conspiracy Theory Adherent Types.” New Political Science (2022). doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2022.2129927 Blockquote (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Person, Movement, Conspiracy Theory, Cult... I'm still not clear after reading this.

The entry as is, for QAnon reads as a disjointed, stilted, and chronologically disorienting way. It also seems to advance additional seemingly unrelated theories, and runs off on numerous tangential issues. Are there any substantial references from sources that are not NPR, CNN, Stanford, or otherwise liberal-leaning? Conservatives repeatedly condemn what happened on 1/6/21, but many vastly disagree with the portrayal of, and people responsible for, those events. Congress itself has only given us a one-sided opinion of the incident to this point, giving much doubt of it's accuracy, such as being described as a "deadly insurrection", as well as lacking any accountability of those in a position to prevent it. Some balance would be helpful in determining who/what this nebulous article is referencing, especially for conservatives being endangered by accusations of subscribing/belonging to this "entity" that most had never previously heard of. Maphoo73 (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE. We aren't going to go diving for pro-QAnon sources to "balance" the article. The reason Congress gave a one-sided opinion is that the QAnon side isn't based on reality. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Bias in this article needs to be fixed

Just wanted to add in my frustration about the lack of neutral bias in this article which is an expectation of all Wikipedia sources. I do not hold any opinions for or against "QAnon" movement and have never heard of it until today, which is why I looked at the Wikipedia definition expecting a non-biased description of what it actually is, what its followers believe, etc, however this article's very blatant bias degrades Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia of information, not an opinionated place for people to push their own beliefs. Thucydides2.0 (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the article, so I can innocently ask, in what way is it biased? Does the article contradict what reliable sources say? HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I have looked, but without knowing what they mean its hard to address it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The article does provide a description of "what it actually is, what its followers believe, etc,"in the sections Background, Origin and Spread, and Claims

The sections about Reactions and Incidents are just factual reporting, and Analysis is mostly stuff like theories about who 'Q' is, not "Ten Reasons QANon Sucks'.

So, really, you're going to need to specify where the bias is. Which specific parts of the article are biased?

You could probably also do with reading Wikipedia's policies about Fringe Theories. Shimbo (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "bias" is towards factual reporting found in reliable third-party sources. This naturally excludes self-published works, and sources with a known reputation for publishing false or misleading information.

Which means our reporting on QAnon reflects that of mainstream sources. You can call that bias if you wish, but that's not going to change how Wikipedia handles conspiracy theories and fringe groups. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"and sources with a known reputation for publishing false or misleading information." Ans yet we still source articles to The New York Times, the newspaper which published fabricated stories about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the NYT has declined over the years. I would not object to anyone requesting their reliability be re-evaluated. That said, it's not the topic of this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Before attempting to have the NYT declared unreliable, you may want to look at the over two dozen previous failed attempts to do so. E.g. this RfC Shimbo (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The OP has not returned to clarify their request. They have made only one other contribution to Wikipedia, a rejected request a week ago to change BCE to BC at David. I believe our OP has some education ahead of them. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

David DePape?

As a new user I think editing here would be beyond "my weight class" but I came to the Qanon page to see if there was any mention of David DePape. To me, the two links below draw parallels with Qanon conspiracies. (but don't make a hard factual connection) I hope this post is useful and constructive. Please excuse my ignorance if necessary and fell free to point me in the proper direction

https://apnews.com/article/california-donald-trump-san-francisco-47c103cfe696df9faf0e57e1c7dd4f10 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/david-depape-alleged-paul-pelosi-attacker-shared-qanon-beliefs-1234620507/ Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

If there's no hard, factual connection, it probably won't fit in here. He seems to have bought a lot of the same conspiracy theories QAnon promotes, but that doesn't necessarily make him a QAnon follower. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep.. that is "exactly" what I perceived; I am very glad you took a look at it and came to the same conclusion.. ~~~ Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

this event is very similar as, so far, nothing explicitly Q has turned up even though the ideas clearly are.

I think there will continue to be events like this so I’d like to have a better understanding of where I might usefully add this event. I think it’s also worth remembering that for at least six months of the pandemic public health authorities didn’t take these conspiracy theories seriously because they didn’t realise the nature of the dynamic and how these conspiracy theories are being spread and gaining momentum. However now there is a reasonable body of forensic data analysis including some evidence of background links to funding and large scale exploitation of the disinfo terrain as part of info warfare… so my mind does get in convoluted knots because I tend to be a lumper rather than a splitter.

I guess it’s constructive for me to look at some history related talk pages to see how this morphing dynamic can be well handled so that I’m better able to understand the options. I’ll get on to that. EthicalAugur (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Q followers obsessed with Byzantium

This essay, from a professor at UC-Irvine, might be worth using as a source for this article. Some Q adherents seem to have embraced a Fomenko-esque revisionist view of Byzantine history. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7094 (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Past Tense?

Given that the major predictions of this... "movement"... proved categorically false several years ago at this point, it seems fair to reword some of the prose in this article to the past tense. For example:

"QAnon's core belief is that the world is controlled by a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping child molesters whom Trump is secretly battling to stop and that Q, an anonymous entity, reveals details about the battle online."

I think that Donald Trump is no longer President of the United States. Unless I've gone back in time, which would be unfortunate (re: paradox, etc). I don't want to make any changes to a page on a topic this legendarily stupid without asking first. RoflCopter404 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Your idea seems legitimate. How would you improve that quote? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

QAnon still exists as a movement, though diminished in size & influence. They still think Trump is going to save them, and a few believe he's secretly still President & pulling strings from behind the curtain. I don't see a reason to change this to past-tense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I would agree, it does seem to still be active. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Identity of Q: Paul Furber and Ron Watkins

This Wikipedia article, as it currently reads, cites a New York Times article from 2/24/22 by David Kirkpatrick titled “Who is Behind QAnon? Linguistic Detectives Find Fingerprints”. This Wikipedia article, however, fails to represent the strength of the evidence for the New York Times article's conclusion: that Furber and Watkins composed and posted the messages anonymously attributed to the fictional “Q” character. TheScotch (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

What exactly are you wanted to change in the article? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

see also section

@StrayBolt: Hello. You recently undid my edit with summary explanation given for each article. Regardless the explanation "of" the articles, I can't see why these articles are relevant to the QAnon article. Would you explain why are they relevant to the article? —usernamekiran (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: They all have many aspects, but not all, of popular online fictitious anonymous secret cryptic conspiratorial predictive messages. I didn't add Paul is dead, but it came with the revert. I had added refs at one point, but they were removed. More could be provided but typically aren't included for SA. Perhaps Nostradamus could be replaced with Nostradamus in popular culture or that Ong's Hat could be replaced by alternate reality game, but I think that is unnecessary. Maybe these seemed more relevant when "Q drops" were occurring and the focus was on the messages. MOS:SEEALSO "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics..."

What do you think about including Postdiction or Vaticinium ex eventu? Maybe it doesn't matter because followers didn't care if the messages became true or not. StrayBolt (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation

Not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The sentence "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goals of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States." might be a disinformation. This claim has to be first proved in court with proving both that there was an interference and that if it was one that its goals were as stated in this sentence. Unless it is proven (and it is not) delete the whole article. Andra1ex (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC) No, that is not how Wikipedia works. We base our articles on information from reliable sources, which are provided in the article. We are not a court of law, and do not hold to the same standards as a court would. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC) The muller report was debunked forever ago. Nor released an article as far back a March 24th, 2019: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706385781/mueller-report-finds-evidence-of-russian-collusion 174.218.20.9 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC) Npr 174.218.20.9 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC) No, it was not debunked. You can read the article at Mueller report which is heavily referenced. But more on point to the OP, the Russian Government did interfere with the 2016 election in Trump's favor. See Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC) Source is another wiki page citing predominantly biased left-wing sources? Your joking. Okay, just so we don't turn this into tribal political argument I'll go ahead and pull up the official special investigation by John Durham for your understanding:https://www.justice.gov/sco-durham . In the least the page should take into consideration the pending resolution into the Russian Colusion story. This isn't supposed to be the place to write opinions from a singler perspective. Both major opinions on the matter should be presented from a non-baised perspective. The wiki page on 'Sources' literally state that: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." 174.218.18.71 (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC) No, the "no collusion" phrase and narrative are Trump's lies, unfortunately often repeated by reliable sources. There is no evidence Mueller ever said such a thing. here's some reading for you: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump#Denial of collusion with Russia False or misleading statements by Donald Trump#Special counsel investigation Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion Mueller report#False "no collusion" claims We need to make a whole article about Trump's false claims of "no collusion" So it's okay to say that Mueller was unable to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination", even though there is some evidence for it, but it's not okay to say that Mueller did not find evidence of "collusion" or that there was "no collusion" between Trump and his campaign with the Russians. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC) It is OK to say that "not 100% of what Trump has said so far has already been proven to be correct" (although many thins have been proven, e.g., the fact that Covid came from a Chinese bio lab, that therapeutic treatments like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine are effective, etc.), but it is not OK to say that "Trump lies", because you (at least theoretically) can be held accountable for a defamation. The "collusion" is a part of the mass media narrative, unfortunately repeated by most of the mass media, which is clearly an reliable source for many decades. You are either confused or intentionally saying wrong things. The first can can be healed by opening your mind to the possibility of being wrong and then applying logical reasoning instead of watching TV. The second is a deeper problem, but your conscious can also be a cure. I obviously cannot conclude so far which reason (1st or 2nd) is the correct one, but either way it'd be better if both are eliminated and substituted with a mixture of truth and good intentions. 24.228.151.249 (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Read wp:nlt. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC) N/A 24.228.151.249 (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC) "that statement is false and damaging, and I ask that it be corrected." 24.228.151.249 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Nor can I find the line you refer to. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC) the line is in your own post above 24.228.151.249 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC) I am unsure I have even used the word Trump (let alone the line you object to) in this thread. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC) it was an answer to the post above "No, the "no collusion" phrase and narrative are Trump's lies, unfortunately often repeated by reliable sources." 24.228.151.249 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC) That statement you made is inherently biased in of itself. There is a difference between stating reliable sources claim Trump lies to your statement of Trumps Lies as a narrative. You cannot play this one sided opinion rethoric with the subject at hand. I'm not stating this out of agreeing with any one statement but rather of the fact that there is major dispute from within the government on this issue of the FBI report. Especially given the fact that there was a recent 3 year long investigation into Mullers claims which have been widely questioned by many sources and government figures from both sides of the issue for quite a few years now. So this is not a simple matter of stating any one opinion is an absolute lie or truth by fact and the statements on this page eludeding to that subject should be reflective of a neutral stance regardless of personal preference. This isn't a reddit. 174.218.18.71 (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2023

2601:680:8100:3060:69FA:31FD:9774:CBA4 (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think you should be reset, and let somebody else care for this page as the writer is clearly biased to one side of thinking!

 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. 💜  melecie  talk - 07:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox?

No consensus for the change, HATting due to trolling attempts. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The French Wikipedia has an infobox for it. Should an infobox be added? 103.169.34.63 (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think it's needed. Besides that French Wikipedia inevitably has different standards than English Wikipedia, there doesn't seem to be much to create for the English version as a topic, especially compared to larger events it contributed, those being Antisemitism and the Jan6 event. Carlinal (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC) the author of this page is writing from a position of authority they could not possess. It would appear they are (A) American Democrat (B) A Trump hater (C) a member of Qanon (D) all of the above 192.174.101.136 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC) More than one person edits this page. And read wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Qanon murders

you forgot all the murders that have happened like the surf school Dad in California...all of those incidents need to be mentioned 173.81.58.252 (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

All content of our articles has to be supported by reliable sources. Please tell us precisely what you would like to see included, providing links to relevant sources. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is coverage of the QAnon influenced dad who killed his two young children with a spearfishing gun. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Other incidents are covered at Timeline of incidents involving QAnon. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theory"

I counted 200 instances of the phrase "conspiracy theory" on this page. 200! The author(s) don't seem able to refer to X without prefixing it with "conspiracy theory". This isn't journalism or good writing but reveals a massive underlying bias. Just because there is something out there that the author(s) do not agree with does that warrant always without fail adding a "conspiracy theory" prefix to? This is a writing style for the modern day cancel culture, showing a total intolerance of the author(s) to this subject matter.

I am not alone seeing through this underlying bias here, and see another person has commented "Personally, I think you should be reset, and let somebody else care for this page as the writer is clearly biased to one side of thinking!". Well said as this article is effectively unreadable due to it's overwhelming sickening bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.43 (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

True, we do not need to hammer home the point. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering the IP is screaming "bias," I kinda think we do. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

They can be biased themselves and still have a valid point, to over-egg the cake might put readers off by assuming we have an agenda. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

People are going to assume that anyway, even if we cut it down to a single use of "conspiracy theory." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

But fewer will if we cut it down. We gain nothing by the overuse of the term, but lose a lot. (I* do sometimes wonder if that is the point, write these articles as if they are written by an 9 year old with a POV to push. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, it will not result in fewer complaints. I'm fine if you want to rewrite the lines, but we do need to still make clear this is nonsense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Calling it a conspiracy theory is the conservative take, rather than using descriptors like "stupid" and "insane". GMG^talk 11:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

A breakdown of the phrases involved:

Phrase	Count
Conspiracy theory	113
Conspiracy theories	63
Conspiracy theorist	24

William Avery (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to refer it as a conspiracy theory on first mention and then simply "QAnon" after that. We don't need to repeatedly say "the QAnon conspiracy theory" for the same reason we don't need to repeatedly say "the Titanic ship", "the city of Paris", "the singer Elvis Presley" etc after introducing the concepts of the Titanic, Paris or Elvis Presley. I don't think this will make it any less clear that the idea is bullshit — that's abundantly clear from the article. Popcornfud (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Strength of presentation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is presented with an air of authority over a subject that is inherently speculative. Worse, it's essentially a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory - no, a conspiracy theory about a range of conspiracy theories that the article vaguely associates with, essentially, about fifty percent of the America electorate. In other words, qAnon itself, by its very definition, is a conspiracy theory, which to an intelligent discerning person will be clear in the first few sentences of this article. Yet the writer(s) of this article do not refer to qAnon as a conspiracy, do not treat it like one, but go out of their way to make it sound as concrete and definable and real as the chemistry involved in crazy glue. And it's apparently a made up word. It appears to have been imposed on the this broad electorate - it does not seem to come from the electorate or the "conspirators" themselves. This is encyclopedia article? I think you can do better. I first learned of this term - and looked it up several minutes ago, because the corporate media across the board is using this evidently bizarre label (qAnon) to attack and discredit people who are simply trying to expose the problem of child sex abuse rings. Wikipedia, this looks really REALLY bad. This is nothing but a conspiracy theory about a host of often unrelated or at best loosely connected conspiracy theories. But it should be presented as a conspiracy theory, otherwise, it makes Wikipedia and the writer look absurd. Jebbrady (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

QAnon as a "movement" or amorphous group is real (just as the Tea Party movement was) and is not a conspiracy theory per se. The group peddles in conspiracy theories. The problem is that QAnon is promoting repackaged conspiracy theories about child trafficking and sex abuse rings. Both the trafficking and abuse rings exist as discrete things, but the notion that there is a vast network of elites behind it is not. That false notion and those who propagate it is what's being discredited. PS - Welcome back from your hiatus! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link to this groups website then so we can check it out? The flag image does not have the word qAnon on it by the way. And you might agree that the article is poorly written. I don't have time to go back and forth with you, but you might want to read my last few sentences. The term has gone viral for the most shocking and degusting of reasons, and you are defending it use as a smear. Jebbrady (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The origins are from 4Chan (like another amorphous group, bronies). You will be hard-pressed to convince anyone that QAnon is somehow a fabricated term meant only to smear far-right conspiracy-believing Americans.

If you want parallels in history of terms like this, try pinko. Only in this case, it's believers in the New Coke version of the satanic panic. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

QAnon spun out of Pizzagate, which was a fabricated scandal around sex trafficking. If you believe the sex trafficking / Satanic cabal claims, you fell for a scam. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biased to weaponise?

soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What an utterly biased set of articles. given that the January 6th has hardly been investigated but whistleblowers within the FBI have proved credible evidence of the weaponisation of this body and it’s clear involvement on Jan.6 which the FBI refuse to comment, clearly it is to jump the evidence by assuming any sense of justice to accuse those who are yet to be proven guilty. Therefore, is the assertion this is nothing short of biased reporting in the media and the government, and lends itself to be highly questionable to vilianze Qanon before the facts are established, something this article clearly attempts to portray. Such a one-sided position at this stage, albeit based as far back as 2016 should have been better researched before falling so hard on the side it takes. This one-sided position is in itself ‘dismantling, the view it so strongly holds in the light of the recent evidence, not least these FBI ‘whistleblowers no less, who have not just nothing to gain but in fact everything to lose. One could further cite the campaign against Trump, this articles truest enemy some 6 years later, is still their ‘most wanted’. I submit one simply ‘must’ present all the evidence, non of which presented here is remotely balanced, and cannot therefore be wholly trusted. Such a view(s) would not to admissible in a ‘fair’ trial if taken to court. If presenting all the evidence is too large an article for the publisher, one must present ‘both’ sides at least relatively equally. This article does in no way achieve that! 2.99.88.37 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC) We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Sound of Freedom (film) regarding inclusion of connections to QAnon

There is a discussion at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) which may interest the regular readers of this talk page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

See also section

Any item in this section should ideally be able to be incorporated into the body of the article if possible. Malerooster (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2023

The descriptor of "conspiracy theory" should be removed. QAnon is a movement/group, not a theory. The group/movement itself is not a theory. It does, in fact, exist. 174.211.96.83 (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done "Conspiracy theory" is very well supported by the sources. - MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What are "the sources"? Do they know who Q is? I haven't seen any source martials on that 72.84.98.133 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Click on the little numbers in the article. MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Request edit to change to Q instead of Qanon

Q is a group posting drops using a dedicated trip code on 8Kun. Anons are those reading the posts. There is no one out there going by the name QAnon. That is a very misleading conspiracy theory that has been debunked 72.84.98.133 (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we say that. I am unsure where the problem lies. Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem Q is not QAnon. QAnon is a conspiracy theory created by folks like you. Q actually makes posts on 8Kun and there is no conspiracy about that. 72.84.98.133 (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Our rule is that the article is titled by the way the subject is commonly named. A plain 'Q' can refer to the British thriller writer, the character from Star Trek: Next Gen, and so forth. 'QAnon' is the term normally used by most ordinary references. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a rehash of an old, old topic. "QAnon" is the popular name for everyone who follows the Q conspiracy theory. It is not an organized group, and we are not claiming it is. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Q is an organized group that's how they have a shared trip code. Anons are not an organized group and don't even know who each other are. Y'all are really drinking the cool aide 72.84.98.133 (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You cannot say everyone who talks about Q refers to it as QAnon cuz I would be an acception. 72.84.98.133 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

As the link you've already been given states, we name the article to match the name commonly used by reliable sources. 'Everyone who talks about Q' is not the same group as the reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I literally said the Anons are not an organized group, so please pay attention. QAnon is the popular term for Anons and others who believe in the conspiracy theory, that's it.

And we are not saying everyone who talks about this calls it that, we're saying it's the best-known terminology. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The article is about QAnon, where there is significant coverage, hence a topic. This includes the user known as Q. A better suggestion would be to split this topic into "QAnon", the conspracy theories surrounding Q, and the user known as "Q Clearance Patriot" - as the QAnon topic is the coverage of both subjects. While not an awful idea, in my opinion there isn't much justification for splitting off part of the Origin and spread and claims sections that discusses QCP, but you could also propose such an idea. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There's just not enough to justify a separate article. They're all intertwined. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Very much agree. But anyone is welcome to proposal such an idea, even if the proposal would be flawed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't encourage new editors to waste their time with proposals that are doomed to failure. MrOllie (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. I'd like to think that new editor or not, there's never a harm in pointless proposals though. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As long as they listen to why, and do not argue the point. Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Protzman

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Michael Protzman, if you are interested in creating an article about this person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)