Talk:QAnon

Fascist Category
QAnon is categorized as an American Fascist movement. However, there is little to indicate a following of Fascist beliefs and principles as laid out by Fascist philosophers other than Nationalism. They haven't spoken in favor of Fascist figures like Mussolini or even Hitler. They may certainly be a far-right movement but definitely not a Fascist movement. Hence, the category American Fascist movements ought to be removed. Listenhereyadonkey (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They often side with Trump, so there's that.... There are numerous RS that connect him with fascist ideas, values, and rhetoric. Here's an interesting thesis. BTW, he, of course, has no clue what fascism really is. He just uses the word to attack left-wingers, even though it's a right-wing ideology that best describes him and his most die-hard followers. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 01:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fascism isn't necessarily either left or right, and in regard to economics, it's actually more left wing. Trump's ideology, while there are parallels to be drawn to Fascism is not a Fascist ideology. The only two shared characteristics are Nationalism and strong man leadership, neither of which are inherently Fascist or exclusive to it and can apply to a multitude of ideologies. Trump's ideology is just Right-Wing Populist Nationalism. It isn't even remotely similar to actual Fascism as it was envisioned and practiced by Fascist philosophers like Gentile, Mussolini, and D'Annunzio, among others. Fascism emphasizes state control, national unity under a powerful government, big government, collectivism, and a Nationalist directive. There's a very distinct philosophy there centered around collective nationalist unity. It's almost a spiritual philosophy that again is very different from Trump's ideology. To be Fascist means to follow a very specific ideology and to call anyone who is a nationalist or an authoritarian or is far-right a fascist based solely on those characteristics that would be gravely inaccurate. Listenhereyadonkey (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Unless there are reliable sources explicitly identifying QAnon as fascist, I'd be inclined to remove the category. It is unquestionably a far right conspiracy theory. And has been so labeled by numerous sources. But I haven't run into any calling it fascist. Trump's allegedly fascist inclinations are neither here nor there. See WP:SYNTH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"Groomers"
As evidenced by my recent edits, I fail to see the relevance of mentioning in this article that "Use of the term groomers was adopted by Christopher Rufo in constructing the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory, and started to influence mainstream Republican political positions and rhetoric". I'm not disputing this, but I don't understand how this is necessarily connected to QAnon : I'm not saying that the belief in a wide, nefarious LGBT plot to "groom" children is incompatible with conspiracy theories about pedophile networks. On the contrary, I am pretty sure that some QAnon (or formerly QAnon) people have embraced the "grooming" concept with enthusiasm. But we should not be implying that all people who use the "grooming" or "groomer" phrases are linked to QAnon, or that Christopher Rufo is a QAnon ideologue, and the current version of the article seems to do just that.
 * QAnon discourse is not "mainstream Republican political positions and rhetoric" or mainstream conservatism in general.
 * There is no evidence of a connection between Christopher Rufo and QAnon (or, if there is evidence of that, it should be included in the article for the benefit of the reader) or that the "grooming" concept originated in QAnon (ditto).

If there is indeed a connection of some sort, we should rewrite this part in order to explain how the LGBT conspiracy theories have been adopted/used by QAnon, per its nature as a "big tent" conspiracy theory. Otherwise, it's just irrelevant to this article. Thanks Psychloppos (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the title of the article is "The QAnon catchphrases that took over the Jackson hearings", but it is paywalled, but would rather ask for expansion and verification than removal. So can some with access to the article conform or deny it makes the link? Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It should definitely be double-checked. We cannot just use the title of an article as a reference, especially if there is the risk of slandering a living person. Once again, I would be ok with an explanation of how the QAnon movement has embraced the LGBT grooming theory (just like it has incorporated claims from an awful lot of other conspiracy theories) but we should not imply that the "groomer" concept and QAnon are necessarily connected.
 * At the very least, if there is no evidence of Christopher Rufo's direct involvement in QAnon, we should simplify this part and write something like "Adherents to the QAnon movement have been using the "groomer" catchprase/other elements from LGBT conspiracy theories because, blah blah (insert source)" without any reference to Rufo. Psychloppos (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then tag it as verification needed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say the problem is both about the passage's relevance and the need for verification. Psychloppos (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Please note that some comments have been altered after I replied to them. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They have generally been expanded (and in some case, corrected - some grammar issues) rather than altered. Psychloppos (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That still counts. It's generally a bad idea to edit your previous comments once someone has replied to them, even if it's just to add more text. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The relevant text from the WaPo article is:

"The most vivid importation of the QAnon worldview is happening in education, the policy domain where conservatives can best prey upon parental fears. Chris Rufo, the conservative activist who orchestrated the movement against critical race theory, is constructing a new moral panic using QAnon messaging. Rufo’s main strategy is “winning the language war,” which effectively means using the McCarthyite tactic of attaching a negative label (“communist!”) to those who hold different beliefs and relentlessly repeating that label regardless of its accuracy. Rufo has urged followers to use language such as “grooming” or “predators” — words intended to trigger images of child sexual abuse. It works. The “groomers” framing played a prominent role in the passage of Florida’s law prohibiting discussion of sexual identity among young children in schools. When it became known among critics as the “don’t say gay” bill, a spokeswoman for Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) reframed it as an “Anti-Grooming” bill. If you oppose the bill, “you are probably a groomer,” she wrote on Twitter."
 * So the language used in the article is that Rufo is directly using QAnon to push the "groomer" rhetoric in order to smear LGBTQIA+ activists as pedophiles. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's odd, because based on this I don't see how Rufo (or the DeSantis team for that matter) can be said to be directly "using QAnon".
 * What we could do, however, is mentioning that The Washington Post sees this as an "importation of the QAnon worldview" in mainstream conservatism. Stoking fears about child molestation does have something in common with QAnon: but we should still not be implying that the "groomer" concept is QAnon. That part of the article should be rewritten. Psychloppos (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What is confusing, IMHO, it the inclusion of this part in the "Slogans and vocabulary" section which gives the impression that the grooming/groomer concept directly originated in QAnon which it apparently did not. If we do include this part about QAnon's influence on mainstream discourse, I'd say it would be more relevant in the "Appeal" subsection, or maybe in "Media, advocacy groups, and public figures". Psychloppos (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rufo has urged followers to use language such as “grooming” or “predators”
 * That's the article asserting that he was actively pushing this terminology to QAnon ("followers" in this context) in order to weaponize them in spreading it. So the argument is not that it originated with QAnon, but that they were used to amplify and spread it. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Does the article means that Rufo has been urging specifically QAnon followers or rather his followers ? He does seem to have a lot of followers of his own so he may not need QAnon that much.
 * Anyway, if we move this part as suggested above and rewrite it to attribute the viewpoint, I'd be ok with this. Psychloppos (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article itself is about QAnon, so it seems clear that the author meant he was addressing QAnon followers.
 * That said, I wouldn't object to moving it to the "Media" section with more clear attribution. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure. Judging by what you posted I'd say the article is more about how Rufo et al have been using a QAnon-like discourse and how QAnon methods have polluted American politics. Saying that Rufo appeals directly and willingly to a QAnon audience is a pretty serious accusation and we can't do that with that (ambiguous IMHO) source alone.
 * Anyway, if we make that move and rewrite this part a little we should probably solve the problem. I can do it if you don't mind. Psychloppos (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: implying that DeSantis and his team are part of the QAnon movement would be even worse so obviously we can't do that either without some very solid sources, and this article is probably not sufficient. Psychloppos (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just did the suggested change. Moynihan's position is pretty extreme IMHO (I see this "groomer" thing less as an influence of QAnon than as a symptom of the broader qualitative degradation of public discourse) but now that the viewpoint is attributed I don't think it will be a problem. Psychloppos (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I made some further edits to include Moynihan's accusations against Rufo rather than "mainstream conservatives". I'd say that by attributing the viewpoint to Moynihan we are cautious enough so that it does not look like a slander of Rufo. The fact that Rufo uses these tactics and that Moynihan likens it to QAnon without Rufo having ever (as far as I know) adhered to QAnon may both be examples of a certain brutalization of political discourse. Psychloppos (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2024
This sentence needs amendment:

One in four Britons believe in QAnon-related theories, though only 6% support QAnon.

The source is from 2020 (things have likely changed since then), and it's a single survey, not a combined review of multiple surveys. Please change it to:

According to a 2020 survey, one in four Britons believed in QAnon-related theories, though only 6% supported QAnon.

Please note the change to "believed" and "supported", as well as the new clause at the start. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Where exactly in the article is this material located? Left guide (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Left guide, Ctrl+F is your friend here (or Cmd+F on mac). Jamedeus (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Left guide, Ctrl+F is your friend here (or Cmd+F on mac). Jamedeus (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)