Talk:QAnon/Archive 3

ARG
(Note: I have broken this off into its own section, as it was not directly related to the previous section it was written in. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC))

---

Financial Times is reporting that this was started as an Alternate Reality Game. I will add text in the lead paragraph based on RS.Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear I noticed that you reverted my edit because one of the sources was Medium. However, I used 3 sources; 2 of which were the Financial Times. Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While there is interesting speculation that QAnon resembles an ARG, there is not enough there to call it such, especially straight into the lead of the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I found RS that now say it is a ARG alternative reality game  such as the Financail Times, also I found a S, called Medium, which another editor said is not RS, that names the acutual person who statrted the ARG. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That is why I am on the talk page trying to have a talk about adding it. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't view the Financial Times link as it's paywalled, but the title sounds more like they're claiming "Q" used the ARG format in order to push a narrative, not that it was an actual game. That's an important distinction. Regardless, that would not be something to put in the lead, but it would possibly fit elsewhere in the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The U Chicago article as well states that QAnon uses ARG-like elements, but does not go so far as to call it an ARG.
 * Psychology Today comes the closest, stating:
 * QAnon is part conspiracy theory, part religious/political cult, and part alternate-reality role-playing game.
 * I could see that potentially being worked into a section of the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think this belongs in the lead, and I think this is overstating most of the sources (which compare it to an ARG; few of them - especially the higher-quality ones - actually state that it is or was one.) It is worth mentioning the comparison to ARGs somewhere in the article, but not in the lead, and definitely not in the first few sentences; and even when it's mentioned, I would definitely stay away from the more dramatic claims in the Medium post unless we can find better sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What about the 2nd ref? It should not be behind a pay wall. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Market Watch is reporting that Aubrey Cottle views QANON as an "out-of-control ARG" . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldshields11 (talk • contribs) 16:26, January 18, 2021 (UTC)
 * What about the 2nd ref?
 * I can't watch the video at work, but a search through the transcript doesn't show any results for ARG, and I can't read through it in detail right now. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Here is a cut and past from the Financial Times film transcript:


 * "A YouTuber called defango has since claimed the work was his. He says he created Q as an alternative reality game, mostly for the LOLs, but also to spoke out bad journalists in the alternative media space. But he also says that in 2018, a man called Thomas Schoenberger wrested control of the game from him. And in a nod to Operation Mindfuck, defango says he too is no longer sure if he ever controlled the game at all"


 * Then further into the transcript:


 * "In 2016, there was FBI Anon, and CIA Anon, Meganon, and all of these different LARPs that were basically practicing, there were prototyping what QAnon is."


 * Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That random YouTuber's claim that they created Q is not reliable. So I wouldn't quote this article for that.
 * The second quote you provide just shows that there were other "Anons" out there at the time pretending to be officials. That does not translate into an ARG. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think and  above basically have it right. The comparison is the sort of thing we could in principle write about, but it's not lede material, and claims by random people about inventing the whole thing are hardly noteworthy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

After Pres. Trump left, QAnon is disappointed
Jan. 20, 2021 Associated Press

QAnon: The inauguration has sown a mixture of anger, confusion and disappointment among believers in the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory. On social media, Trump's departure from the White House prompted a crisis of faith among QAnon supporters. Many believed that Trump would be orchestrating mass arrests, military tribunals and executions of his Satan-worshipping, child-sacrificing enemies https://apnews.com/article/biden-inauguration-qanon-79dd03a6dc497d6157304f8045f12cef

And a lot more interesting info that might be useful for updating the Wiki article.

And another article, from Reuters News agency: No plan, no Q, nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * QAnon followers reel as Biden inaugurated “The whole movement is called into question now.” and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * QAnon in crisis as day of reckoning fails to materialize &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Q relies on 8kun to make posts
I think this is well attested enough for the lead now.



Many more sources exist.

The fact that the lead only mentions 4chan is in my view an error and puts too much emphasis on the past. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 10:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support this addition to the lead. I was actually surprised yesterday when working on a related article to see that it was not mentioned in the lead here. 8chan is also described as the "home" of QAnon by The Daily Beast and Wired. I don't think the current mention in the lead (Followers had also migrated to dedicated message boards such as EndChan and 8chan (now rebranded as "8kun"), where they organized to wage information warfare in an attempt to influence the 2020 United States presidential election.) accurately reflects the role 8chan plays. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm good with updating this. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and updated the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Stylometry in lede?
I noticed the statement in the lede that A stylometric analysis of Q posts claims to have uncovered that at least two people wrote as "Q" in different periods. This seems an accurate summary of the given sources, but is it too much detail for the introductory paragraphs? The section about the identity of "Q" only gives that stylometric analysis a single sentence, with much less detail than the paragraph on the Watkinses. Also, the line about stylometry is perhaps redundant with the previous statement, it is now more likely that "Q" has become a group of people acting under the same name. Maybe the Watkinses should be in the lede instead of stylometry? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is now quite an abundance of reporting on one or both of the Watkinses' connections to Q, as I noticed when writing Ron Watkins last night. It's quite a bit more than there was when I was working on Jim Watkins (businessman) last fall. I would've probably opposed adding Watkins to the lead back then, but I could probably be convinced to add the speculation about their connections to Q based on the sourcing available today (which can probably be improved in that section, actually). I have no strong opinion on whether stylometry ought to be mentioned or not, but your observation about its outsized weight in comparison to its weight in the article seems accurate to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 21 January 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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Jake Angeli (Qanon Shamon), seen holding a Qanon sign (cropped).jpg

Call it what it is
I think people here should stop pussyfooting around what QAnon is: it's a dangerous, brainwashed cult of violent, seditionist thugs who plotted to kill Pence and Pelosi all because of a string of lies spread by a psychopathic failure of a world leader. These psychos incited a riot and got people killed. Don't hedge bets in how you describe them here--they're crazy and they're idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.149.12 (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's healthy discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Operation Trust should be linked into the see also section. Operation Trust includes Qanon in its see also section and they fit reciprocally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.246.32 (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We need sources saying this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Connection to Cicada 3301
In the Identity of "Q" section there is a single mention of Cicada 3301 as a possible source of Q's posts. I just watched a Financial Times film called "Is QAnon a game gone wrong?" in which Izabella Kaminska looks at the origin of QAnon. At 8:30 into the film she asks Jim Stewartson about the link between Cicada and QAnon. He replies by telling her about a woman called Lisa Clapier (@SnowWhite7IAM). whose "job" it apparently was to "bring people over from Cicada to QAnon". I am wondering whether this should be mentioned in the article? Ianji (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021
Remove ALL liberal opinions and disproven comments about conservative groups such as Q Anon. The liberal opinions are NOT correct. Q Anon is NOT a terrorist group, (contrary to liberal lies). Keep printing lies on wikipedia and the whole site will be disassembled and removed from existence! 174.247.251.76 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Volteer1 (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

QAnon
Many Conspiracy Theories do exist, this Wiki information is not all correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4FF6:9870:585C:AEF1:1219:6C07 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

QAnon is a cult
The article lede should reflect that Qanon is not just a mere theory but a cult. There is enough expert sources that refer to it as a cult. I propose we change the lede to: "QAnon is a cult devoted to a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory" —МандичкаYO 😜 04:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Q'Anon is wrong there is no satanic cult in the white house. I have had dealings with satanic cults and they don't even follow satan anymore, if anything the heads of office are the leaders of their own cult and just labeling it as satanic  JohnFoyer (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The yoga connection
BBC, maybe good for something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "False claims" section
"8. That an 1871 act makes the United States a corporation and that on March 4, 2021, when the United States once again becomes the country started by our Founding Fathers, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as 19th President of the United States.


 * https://www.vice.com/en/article/88akpx/qanon-thinks-trump-will-become-president-again-on-march-4
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/qanon-trump-march-sovereign-citizen-fbi-b1792830.html
 * https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/qanon-conspiracy-theories-trump-tiktok-1118668/
 * https://www.the-sun.com/news/2205888/qanon-followers-convinced-trump-president-again-march-4/

— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh great, now they're incorporating SovCit nonsense into this. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite
 * Well, that's not a no. I think I've found enough sources to establish this conspiracy theory is notable.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Sun is a depreciated source and Vice is 'no consensus', but IMO you should go ahead and add this false claim, referenced to the other two sources, which are both 'generally reliable'. It might be worth mentioning that this latest false claim is borrowed from the Sovereign Citizen Movement too. I suppose it might be worth waiting till March 5th, at which point I suspect you'll be able to add it the 'False Predictions' section too. BTW: see WP:RSP for the consensus on sources' reliability. --Shimbo (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I just now realized you are the one who told be about the Sovereign Citizen Movement. As I said on your talk page, the source for which 1871 act made the U.S. a corporation does not explicitly state that.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The March 4 thing is really something they believe. Here's some more sources:
 * NPR's Fresh Air
 * Reuter's fact checking
 * WABE Atlanta Public Radio
 * Jacobin (explicitly says this)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Vchimpanzee There are three different sources on District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871  for the fact that there's a conspiracy theory linked to the sovereign citizen movement that the act turned the USA into a corporation, as well as the four others that  Eve rgr een Fir  just supplied. The Dispatch Fact Check source says it very specifically IMO. Here's the quote: "Adherents of this theory claim that the Organic Act of 1871 did away with the Constitution and ended Americans’ sovereignty. Following President Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, there have been many claims circulating in the form of tweets and articles, that the “Act of 1871,” established America as a “corporation.” " BTW: let's talk about it here rather than on my user page, so other people can help decide how best to word this. --Shimbo (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What's the URL of the very specific quote, and where do we locate it in the sentence on the theory?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/did-legislation-passed-in-1871-make (Second and third paragraphs). IMO just leave the sentence as it is. Add the reference by all means though. --Shimbo (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. All fixed.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Will Sommer says on the Jacobin article We could attribute the quote to him.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where would that go?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we use this?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, as IB Times is not a reliable source. See WP:IBTIMES Was there anything in particular in that article that you wanted to add because I'm sure you could find it in a reliable source. There's been a lot of coverage of QAnon recently. --Shimbo (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Family disruption; reddit r/QAnonCasualties; psychological issues; shifting "prophecy"
See, Politico Magazine cover article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

External link suggestion
https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/

See also: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/19/qanon-conspiracy-theory-family-members-reddit-forum-469485 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.209.239.78 (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOSOCIAL. "chat or discussion forums/groups" are among "links normally to be avoided". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"disproven and discredited"
The first sentence says "QAnon is a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory". I think we should just shorten it to "debunked". Anyone else? Sergei zavorotko (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 'Debunked' has recently become a slur by the certain actors to delegitimize and cast doubt. This is best kept as is. I must assume this is a good faith suggestion, but the discourse as of late means this word isn't useful in modern discussion, but a dog whistle.

Although if you're ok with it, instead of 'debunked', I think dishonest, fraudlent, misleading, or untrustworthy would be better exchanges, assuming this page needs changes, which there is no reason for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.146.230 (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any dog-whistle usage for "debunked". &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * “Debunked“ is imprecise. The current phrasing indicates that it has been both proven to be non-factual, and proven to be non-credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.253.224 (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sergei zavorotko. I think most readers will find the current phrasing to be essentially redundant, especially for the first sentence in the lede. At least as far as the first sentence is concerned, "debunked" covers the same thing in a more succinct manner.Behindthekeys (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I differ and concur with the IP 104.148.253.224. Disproven" indicates that it has been proven factually false; "Discredited" speaks to the complete lack of credibility of the various accusations made by Q-Anon proponents. Substituting merely "debunked" is inadequate in this regard. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * agree, debunked preferable, and usually what we use when some bs has been categorically dismantled and shown to be complete fucking codswallop. One "disproves" actual theories, this is not, nor has it ever been, a theory, it's delusional nonsense. Acousmana (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you got your indentation wrong, since IHateAccounts was saying they disagree with including "debunked." Further, one can disprove any statement, not just theories, so that's not a good argument for this change. And QAnon has been disproven, handily, given that none of their predictions came true. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey fellas, I would just like to point out that most of these sources are pretty one-sided and politically charged. It is a conspiracy theory article in an encyclopedia, so perhaps we should keep the emotion out of it. Let's leave the pathos to the politics and the unbiased reality to the encyclopedia. Only using left-wing sources for that intro is a gateway to allowing emotion into our sources of facts. Which facts, by definition, should not be emotional. It's understandable that there aren't many right-winged published articles about QAnon so due and undue weight is kinda tricky to pull off, but let's at least write it in a way that promotes healthy conversation and not blunt force screaming.Gdally17 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The media (here at least), tend to use the term "a baseless conspiracy theory" ... which avoids the question of who debunks and discredits things. example. Reading the whole first (current) sentence of the article - "QAnon is a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotting against US president Donald Trump, who is fighting the cabal". I really haven't been following this story much, as it's so utterly fringe, and so obviously extremist and racist ... but is that really the best description of it? That sounds more like a parody than reality ... surely this must be centred about more than "a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring" ... I'd assumed that was just people making fun of one of the whackier elements of this group - not the core belief. Have I missed something, or has someone been playing with the lead? Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that is really the core belief structure of QAnon followers, as batshit insane as it sounds. Per the New York Times:

"What is QAnon? QAnon is the umbrella term for a sprawling set of internet conspiracy theories that allege, falsely, that the world is run by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who are plotting against Mr. Trump while operating a global child sex-trafficking ring.

QAnon followers believe that this clique includes top Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and George Soros, as well as a number of entertainers and Hollywood celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, Ellen DeGeneres and religious figures including Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama. Many of them also believe that, in addition to molesting children, members of this group kill and eat their victims in order to extract a life-extending chemical from their blood.

According to QAnon lore, Mr. Trump was recruited by top military generals to run for president in 2016 in order to break up this criminal conspiracy, end its control of politics and the media, and bring its members to justice."
 * I really do wish that I could tell you it was made up but alas... IHateAccounts (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "members of this group kill and eat their victims in order to extract a life-extending chemical from their blood" ... oh come on. Surely it's more likely that someone has highjacked my computer here and I'm on Candid Camera right? I've seen more believable stuff in The Beaverton or on This Is That. Struggling to comprehend how anyone who believes this isn't held for psychiatric observation. Nfitz (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They probably should be, once identified and caught. On the other hand, that is literally the set of beliefs. The fact that they're cribbing from age-old anti-semitic, nazi/neo-nazi bullshit like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ought to make it a hard sell but I've seen people go down that rabbit hole and once they're inside it's a fucking cult. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But it's clearly a parody, to the usual point of unbelievability. Not a cabal of bankers ... but pedophiles? And their saviour isn't someone who isn't a banker ... but Trump of Epstein fame? I've seen people go down rabbit holes of mental illness before ... but it's involved non-existent stalkers, and romantic entanglements that later proved never to exist - but did exist in their mind ... . This ... I just can't fathom. Just reading this, and hearing that some really believe it, almost makes me think I must be on such a prepice! But we are off-topic. Go with "baseless conspiracy theory". But ... how is something so nutcase even in the conspiracy theory category ... there must be another term ... Delusional disorder comes to mind; though there'd need to be sourcing. My mind is completely blown ... Nfitz (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I really cannot express how much I wish that it WERE a parody... but sadly it's not, it's the actual deal. It spreads itself by making up new shit, like the Wayfair "child selling" conspiracy theory that leads suckers back into it. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, this conspiracy sounds bonkers. However, all I see in this article, as far as sources for this conspiracy are concerned, are articles written by those who debunk it. However, everyone knows that the scientific method in social sciences requires that direct sources must be provided. In other words, an opinion about what someone told or wrote or a description of what someone else told or wrote is not a source in itself. The weakness of this article is that it does not provide any direct sources of this conspiracy written by the conspirators themselves. I understand, that the conspiracy appeared as written word on various internet text boards and social media platforms. Removing that content by the owners/operators of those boards/social media outlets is not helpful in conducting serious study of this particular conspiracy. Imagine if every copy, physical or electronic of Mein Kampf were destroyed and the only "source" of study of Hitler's ideology contained in it were opinions and descriptions of its contents. I also understand that when studying the past, sourses do not exist but, this is an existing conspiracy that still evolves through written word.2607:FA48:6EDA:1C10:68A0:FA2F:1096:E260 (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * MAybe, but until (verifiable) material about this conspiracy written by the conspirators themselves show up we go with analysis. After all that is all QAnon is, speculation.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is about how to source unreliable content, such as lies and conspiracy theories. Our content is supposed to be based primarily on secondary and tertiary sources, not primary sources, as dependedence on primary sources quickly leads to original research violations. We also base all of our content on RS, and since no sources favorable to QAnon are RS, we cannot use them. We therefore depend on how RS document and quote what QAnon says. That way we know what the various aspects of the conspiracy theory are worded, while getting the correct interpretation from RS which don't blindly parrot it as if it's true. -- Valjean (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly am not someone who can say what can be used in a Wikipedia article as source for a raw description (not a critique or assessment) of a social theory, conspiracy or otherwise. I am mere reader of Wikipedia. However, if it is true that the primary sources cannot be used as sources because they would constitute to original research violations, then, continuing with my point about Hitler's Mein Kempf, the Wikipedia article describing that book and its contents and theories contained in it should not use any direct references to the book itself but rather, to works of other authors who have analyzed it. Otherwise, such references should constitute "original work" violation. However, if you read that article - Mein Kempf - it is full of direct references to Mein Kempf and, in my opinion rightfully so. Just go and read that article and see the references to the primary source that is the actual Hitler's book. How can one better describe a theory (again, I am talking about raw description of a theory, not the assessment of the theory) if not referring directly to the author of the theory and his own work, if such exist. Then, in later part of the article, obviously, as a good ecyclopaedia should do, present various critiques and assessments of the theory. I am not trying to stir any unnecessary discussion here. What I wanted to say is that the article, in my opinion lacks direct sources in the part that presents the QAnon conspiracy, and is based on sources that are themselves mainly sharp criticizing it. If someone who has never heard about that conspiracy theory but who has also a well developed sense of critical thinking, read this article, he would have to come to the conclusion that this article should be called "List of arguments allowing to disprove QAnon conspiracy theory". Anyway, thank you for your replies. 2607:FA48:6EDA:1C10:68A0:FA2F:1096:E260 (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We can use primary sources if we are quoting them, such as "and in My Camping Hilter said ....", what we can't do is say it is true, or give it the same weight as 10 scholars saying is cobblers. We can't say "Qanon has said it has evidence Trump ate babies whilst having sex with cats", what we can say is "that according to Qanon Trump ate babies whilst having sex with cats, but no evidence has been presented" (for example), because that is what RS say. Now can you think of one thing Qanon has said and has actually provided evidence for?Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with primary sources in a case like this is that they are way too amorphous.
 * "Mein Kampf" is a book. One can quote from a book, or make simple statements about a book, and so forth, without straying into what is considered "original research".
 * QAnon is a label for a bunch of interrelated ideas, existing as online postings, inside the heads of those who consider themselves part of the "movement", et cetera. Even deciding what should and should not be considered part of it would already stray well into OR territory. Which leaves secondary and higher-order sources as the only viable basis.
 * - 2A02:560:4234:6900:DCDC:75B6:EE51:5EA6 (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I really do think a lot of the wording is redundant. For example, we don't need to be calling it a Baseless Far-Right Conspiracy Theory. We don't need to call it both disproven and discredited either. Debunked sums it up very well, and most importantly, it has a more neutral tone. We could leave all the redundant wording in place and the content of the article is the same, however, it has a very, angry per se, tone. As if it were written by, with no better way of explanation, an angry far-left progressive fuming after seeing Mike Pence in that picture with the QAnon kooks. Also, echoing what has been stated above. In order for a theory to be discredited, it first must be an actual theory, and in order for it be discredited, it must first have credit. Also, we don't need to be putting "Falsely", after words such as allege. It's true that the allegations are false, but it only needs to be said once. This article needs a lot of work. JazzClam (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good points all. I think that to condense the meaning of disproven and discredited, the opening sentence could say unfounded. Which precisely says that there is no evidence without sounding redundant. The first few sentences could mention "extremist movement" as well -- obvious but worth stating at the beginning for reasons of convention. On a side note, this recent article[1 ] could be a good citation, most of the information is already here but some quotes can be incorporated. Rauisuchian (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you. Unfounded is better than debunked, because, again, in order for something to be debunked it first must have some credibility, which QAnon does not have. Also, I agree that we need to specify "Extremist Movements" more often, because certain parts of the article imply that QAnon is something believed in by all right wingers, no matter how moderate or extreme, which is untrue. JazzClam (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "something to be debunked it first must have some credibility," not at all. Demonstrating that something is untrue, false, a sham, bullshit, absolute fucking codswallop, etc. that's all it means, nothing more. Acousmana (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I replied above: disproven indicates that it has been proven factually false; discredited speaks to the complete lack of credibility of the various accusations made by Q-Anon proponents. Substituting merely "debunked" is inadequate in this regard. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfounded is good, again, using disproven could inadvertently imply that it required disproving, it actually didn't, because it was quite evidently bollocks from the outset, same for discredited, it never had any credit, it was horsehit, only wingnuts and bored housewives gave it credence. Acousmana (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that is subject to a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, and their above comments are only present due to a clerical error. See for details. — Newslinger   talk   03:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This article's tone is non-neutral - it reads like counter propaganda.

Also, it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

So I would argue strongly that "disproven" be removed, but that rather the specific claims be addresses and disproven where possible (obviously with research) JMPZ (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An absolute, unequivocal "no" to that. This has been discussed countless times before, both here and at virtually every other conspiracy theory article. Reliable sources call QAnon baseless nonsense, so we do too. Responding to each and every BS claim lends undue weight to those claims. You're confusing neutrality with false balance. If a random person on the internet makes a claim, and all RS and mainstream sources ignore it or state that it's nonsense, we don't need to, and in fact can't, dissect it. See WP:Fringe. Also see the past archives of this talk page and maybe the Sandy Hook one, so you can understand policy here. But just as a heads up, because I've dealt with a lot of people making the arguments you're making: I'm not going to have a conversation with you on it, and you do not have consensus to make any of the changes you're pushing for, and if you do make them, you may be reported to admins for disruptive editing. Not saying that you have done that or will, but it's a common pattern, and the way to deal with it is well established. Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's funny because I don't believe any QAnon theories but when someone is telling me something and they lead in with how it's 'disproven and discredited' I am immediately suspicious of whether they have an ulterior motive. I think that's just human nature, almost like the person has 'jumped the gun' in persuading the reader one way or the other. It's not neutral because it's read as an objective statement, rather than a statement from a reliable source (even if it is). Most people who visit wikipedia don't even know what citations are, let alone think about them as they're reading. I think the page should be rewritten to be more like the page '9/11 conspiracy theories'. The first line describes what the theories are, then the second line notes that reliable sources have rejected the theories. It feels far less like a Vox-tier hit piece and more like a neutral article.101.98.134.21 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If you're arguing that the writing should be dumbed down, that's really not a good argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you implying the current lead is sophisticated or intelligently written? That's a bold claim. I think it should be rewritten to be like literally every other conspiracy theory article instead of being imbued with the insanity of the current US political climate. Literally every single other mainstream conspiracy article starts with a sentence which describes the content of the conspiracy without using adjectives like 'false' or 'discredited', this one is the exception, not the rule. Probably because it has been worked over too much for too long by people with too much time on their hands. 101.98.134.21 (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We definitely need some words to that effect for WP:FRINGE reasons. It might be worth looking at precisely how the sources describe it to get a sense of which to use, if we're considering changing it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be removed, if just as absurd ideas like 9/11 and Holocaust denial don't have this I really don't see the need. The absurdity of this theory speaks for itself. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The severity of the delusion plus the activities that inspire it are what determines how severely we should dismiss it. There's a cottage industry dedicated to finding Bigfoot (which we dismiss) but very few people believe in physical Dragons and most of them think they're extinct.
 * As insane as 9/11 conspiracy theories are, they are a different animal to the QAnon cult. 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists do acknowledge that the WTC buildings were hit by planes and then fell (they just imagine extra steps and blame different people).  QAnon starts with the assumption that truth is ontologically defined as whatever glorifies Trump and then just spews out whatever distractions from that immediately disproven assumption exist.
 * While there were undoubtedly some 9/11 troofers at the Capitol attack on Jan 6, that wasn't the core belief that drove them to build gallows and call for the murder of elected gov't officials -- it was their devotion to their god-emperor and his prophet Q. When QAnon is as much a historical oddity as the Cult of Reason or Jonestown, we can tone down the language. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * First Wiki is a encyclopedia not an activist site, language should remain neutral no matter the topic. Second what your writing above in solely opinion. QAnon is based on lies and people reading into things like Jeffery Epstein, it is no different than Holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers reading into what they wanted based on the Iraq war, Israel, etc. They all take things by misreading facts and lies, they should not be treated differently. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia writing follows WP:RS coverage. WP:RS coverage, in this case, indicates first that it is false, discredited, a conspiracy theory, etc... and THEN, if the article merits, delves a little into the beliefs of QAnon adherents. Therefore, the lead states FIRST that the theory is disproven and discredited, before listing the tenets of the conspiracy theory. is correct: once QAnon is 30-40 years into the past, and it's being treated as an intellectual curiosity rather than being a very real threat because its adherents are violent nuts, then the WP:RS coverage will be different and Wikipedia's (if Wikipedia still exists 30-40 years from now) will follow. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Plenty of Holocaust deniers are violent and committed terror attacks, there is no difference other than one group believes that this deserves special treatment, despite being different than all other articles. The violent part does make sense either, should we say that about the Russia investigation cause 2017 Congressional baseball shooting was motivated by claims that Trump was controlled by Russia? No now of course the two are different things, but the point is that something that is a conspiracy should not be treated differently based on vague notions of what could happen. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Isolated holocaust deniers - most of whom have primarily not been "holocaust deniers" but members of other violent groups, such as neo-nazi groups or the KKK - have committed terror attacks, but QAnon is different in the scope and scale, especially as shown most recently with the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol‎. Trying to compare the two and arguing that the articles should be similar is WP:OTHERSTUFF and a failed argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not other stuff, it is about having a standard across the site. Also the storming has little bearing, not everyone at the protest was Qanon and the rioters who stormed were not all Qanon, again the absurdity stands for itself, no need for extra wording just keep it concise. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not extra wording. "Disproven" and "discredited" are two separate concepts. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also:
 * holocaust denial has been studied since the end of WW2, quite extensively and academically, so of course the WP:RS coverage is different.
 * likewise, there are not "holocaust denial clubs" or groups whose primary purpose is holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is folded in as PART of other ideologies (such as neo-naziism, Christian Identity/Identitarian movement/Creativity (religion)) and so forth. QAnon is an active movement, with adherents who primarily identify themselves as "Q followers" or "Q supporters" or "Q believers", with active tenets telling them to prepare for participation in violent confrontation and insurrection.
 * The coverage in wikipedia is different because the WP:RS coverage of the topics is different. WP:OTHERSTUFF remains an invalid argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And? "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." . Main arguement I see put forth is that QAnon is an ongoing threat that requires us to get involved, which is not what wiki is for. It is an absurd conspiracy theory and should be treated like all others. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"disproven and discredited" is awkwardly wordy, and, on top of that, the word "discredited" implies that the theory had credibility to start with. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC) -

As a social psychologist by theoretical orientation and education, this talk page is fascinating as heck. Documenting and providing information (in an encyclopedia format) on an insane, ongoing internet cult is clearly incredibly difficult, tediously time consuming, and seemingly innately pedantic.

That said, I applaud all those who are working on this as I think its important to document its ongoing state, evolution, and convolutions. The ideas and beliefs of the movement are crazy nonsense, but the movement itself is real. That is a difficult tightrope to walk. Again, hats off to those who volunteer to do this work. Genuinely impressive testament to, at the very least, intellectual honesty, the scientific method, and rationality. I think this talk page is a demonstration that the rules and norms of Wikipedia work, and is a testament to Wikipedia’s importance as THE encyclopedia of the 21’st century. - SM

. - I am a prior Assistant Counsel to the President, Bush 41, Prosecutor under first Eric Holder, and then Robert Mueller. This article is patently offensive. I have read all the footnoted material, and none of it (not one part) is based upon personal knowledge of a group of people more than a few (less than five, often none). It has no public affiliation.

I took Constitutional Law under Joe Goldstein at Yale Law. I took Free Speech from Owen Fiss. I had a seminar with, among others, Aharon Barak of the Israeli Supreme Court and Burke Marshall, literally the author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (Look at the video of the signing ceremony by LBJ.)

This is the most offensive and ridiculous type of post to include in Wikipedia, certainly as it is written. It is McCarthyite-like in its tones. (See the Wednesday 'article' by the New York Times on a 'Reality Czar.') If this is allowed to say on Wikipedia, I believe it is false advertising, and if you have 501(c)(3) status, I believe that the law requires that you lose it. I am quite serious here. If I don't, someone should attack your status, and more. It is outrageous in a free society to present such material as "authoritative." I am quite frankly shocked. I have never been shocked before like this in America.

If you want to engage in political "commentary" and stirring up your own conspiracy theories -- here a conspiracy theory about an alleged conspiracy -- please do it on pages not labeled an "Encyclopedia." For the love of God (as an expression.) What is the phone number of the CEO of Wikipedia. I'd like to speak to him and his lawyers.PublicQWH (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)PublicQWH
 * This editor has been blocked for the obvious legal threats. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think removing him for other reasons might be valid, but you are being dishonest with your reasoning Orangemike. Please read what you referenced, it is very clear that you can only use it for threats against other EDITORS, not Wikipedia as a whole which appears to be his intention.  Also what is purpose of keeping something that you find personally offensive around on a talk page after banning the offending user?  Gloern (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hoax
Instead of "disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory", how about "far-right hoax"? The word hoax is much more concise than "disproven and discredited conspiracy theory", and has been used to describe QAnon in many reliable sources, including the academic source "Breaking the Spin Cycle: Teaching Complexity in the Age of Fake News" (published by Johns Hopkins University Press; preprint available with identical wording as the published version for the relevant part). Reliable news sources that describe QAnon as a hoax include Global News, NPR, NBC News , and PolitiFact. This article is already categorized into Category:2010s hoaxes, Category:2020s hoaxes, and Category:Hoaxes in the United States. —  Newslinger  talk   09:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * could support that, again, it's a case of Russell's teapot, and it it was never credible to begin with. Acousmana (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be hesitant because hoax implies "falsehood deliberately fabricated", and the intent hasn't really been shown. The creator could just be delusional. While good sources use that term, I'm not sure that is a dominant view so I wouldn't use it in the lead sentence. StrayBolt (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hoax works for me.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Tend to agree with User:StrayBolt above. "Hoax" tends to implies deliberate and knowing deception.  G M G  talk  14:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Definition of hoax (Entry 1 of 2)
 * transitive verb


 * to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous
 * were hoaxed by the website
 * hoax noun
 * Definition of hoax (Entry 2 of 2)
 * 1: an act intended to trick or dupe : IMPOSTURE
 * the victim of a cruel hoax
 * assumed the bomb threat was just a hoax
 * 2: something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication
 * believes the Loch Ness Monster is a hoax
 * a literary hoax

Seem to be that is just what this is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, there is an implication that something is being done knowingly and intentionally. If I'm just dumb and gullible and I honestly think G5 towers cause athletes foot, ;;then I'm spreading falsehoods, but I'm not really perpetrating a hoax.  G M G  talk  15:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the above definition includes knowingly and intentionally, just "believing or accepting as genuine something false".Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You missed out "to trick into". The tricking is the intentional part. William Avery (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * True, I stand corrected.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that hoax is wrong because of the issue of intent. Popcornfud (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But, I do think we can use "hoax" in the lead paragraph/section, especially with the RSes and increase by followers feeling that (call it a hoax, feel it is a hoax). I don't know how to quantify that without using a weasel word (some, many,…). WP 21/1/21 QAnon hoax trend StrayBolt (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's generally a sign that you shouldn't use it. The standard is the preponderance of sources and common sense. When a subject has been widely enough covered, you can find multiple sources using whatever variety of language you want. I have a hard time believing that "hoax" is the language used most often if you're not looking for sources that use the word hoax.  G M G  talk  00:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there’s a confusion between perpetrators and dupes in this thread. Clearly many/most/almost all that follow “Q” do so sincerely and believe the “messages”. That’s not within the definition of hoax. However, those that put out the “secret information” in the first instance are instigating a hoax. i think it’s a dead end to speculate whether they themselves are delusional and therefore it’s not intentional. It can only be taken at face value: Res ipsa loquitur. But the fact that dupes, in good faith, subsequently promulgate the hoax, doesn’t stop it from being a hoax. And, by the way, Google tells me that plenty of RS refer to it as a “hoax”. DeCausa (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * " i think it’s a dead end to speculate whether they themselves are delusional and therefore it’s not intentional." This goes both ways. We can't guess at the intent of the perpetrators, and assume they're running it as a hoax. Popcornfud (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But the RS do assume so. DeCausa (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See GMG's response above. Popcornfud (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"false claims"
Another false claim made by QAnon believers, after the failed prediction of Donald Trump being reinstalled as President in March the 4th is that it is a conspiracy made by the left to make it look like QAnon has been debunked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pøgbasenior (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * We can't have all of them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Failed predictions
Can someone please put the failed predictions in chronological order?116.240.236.234 (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All of them failed. None of the predictions were accurate, none came true. There's too many to list. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

“and plotted against…Donald Trump”
Could be read as Qanon did the plotting against Trump instead of the cabal. Admiral Ackbar2100 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if you ignore the preceding words, which are clear we are talking about allegations Q has made.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Pastel QAnon, the radicalisation of women using imagery and topics they are familiar with
Several media sources are covering a radicalisation technique used by QAnon described by researchers as Pastel QAnon, where QAnon co-opts the language and imagery of yoga, self improvement and other things popular with women to recruit them. They often frame their conspiracies as 'concern about child protection'.

I feel like this is an important aspect to include but I don't know enough about the topic to include it well. Please could someone take a look. I think this speaks to a wider need for a section describing radicalisation techniques used to recruit people.


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9YRQaIUNHY
 * https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/qanon-pastel-antivax-natural-parenting-community-freebirth-1098518/
 * https://www.wired.co.uk/article/yoga-disinformation-qanon-conspiracy-wellness
 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-55957298
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/08/how-instagram-aesthetics-repackage-qanon/615364/
 * https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/25/morning-mail-alleged-rapist-returned-to-parliament-pastel-qanon-vaccine-tracker

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've now created an article for Pastel QAnon, I would really appreciate it if you could add it to your watchlists, I think it may attract some of the same issues as the main QAnon article. John Cummings (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

MAGA Jesus image
There's a discussion at about whether this image should be deleted. The nominator says the it's a "Derivative work of a copyrighted banner". It seems more people should drop in there and weigh in. There's been little discussion so far. Benicio2020 (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Near copy of Quicktime logo -- a potential intellectual property infringement
I just learned about Qanon here on Wikipedia. My first mental association when I saw the blue version of the logo was Quicktime, a "multimedia framework developed by Apple Inc." (to quote the Wikipedia article "QuickTime"). Is that really a coincidence, or is this Qanon conspiracy cult trying to reap and rip the benefits of logo familiarity by infringing and capitalizing on Apple's presumably trademarked logo? I mean, of all the colors, why would the Qanon cult pick the very same blue nuance as that of the already confusingly similar Q logo of Quicktime? (And can someone please alert Apple to this? I think being connected to a retarded cult isn't something Apple would take lightly.)

Here's the Quicktime logo I had in mind: https://www.player.one/how-uninstall-quicktime-and-remove-windows-10-81-7-and-vista-527331 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.46.161.188 (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pleae read wp:or, it does not matter if you have noticed it wp:rs have to have noticed it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia articles are not allowed to contain original research. This is a talk page, not an article. The point with a talk page is to talk about Wikipedia articles. (And even if what you seem to suggest were correct, I'm not claiming anything. I'm simply creating awareness of a potential issue by asking a question.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.46.161.188 (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Article talkpages are for specific, sourced improvement suggestions for articles, not for speculation or general discussion of a topic.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, it has little to do with reality. (Most comments on talk pages have no "source" other than the commenters themselves.) And what kind of action do you suggest I take? It's not like I can remove my comment, despite it being my own comment. (Welcome to the absurdities of Wikipedia, folks!) I have tried that in the past, only to have my own comment put back by someone else, and being met with inexplicable accusations of "vandalism"(!), and similar absurd claims. I took of my unpaid time to make a contribution, but apparently it's viewed as a problem rather than being met with appreciation. If I could, I would just remove my comment about the Quicktime logo similarity, but unfortunately, Wikipedia being entangled in its own stupidities, I can't do anything about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.46.161.188 (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A simple image of the letter Q is not copyrightable. Even if it was, we are not customer service for Apple.  G M G  talk  20:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

ADL
Just because content was added by a COI account (assuming they are) is not an excuse for the blanket removal of an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleted material: Would be worth substantive discussion of what is DUE and verifiable and what isn't,as well as check for secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) According to the ADL, one theory suggests that President Biden could pick up the QAnon mantle, speculating that the letter traditionally left by each outgoing president to his successor might contain Q-related instructions.
 * 2) According to ADL, another component is a prophesized period of unrest that will correspond to The Storm, which has led to vivid speculation about any news story or event referencing ten days. When Trump contracted COVID-19, it was speculated that he needed to quarantine for ten days.
 * 3)  According to ADL, several aspects of QAnon lore mirror longstanding antisemitic tropes. For example, the belief that a global "cabal" is involved in rituals of child sacrifice has its roots in the medieval antisemitic trope of blood libel —the conspiracy theory that Jews murder Christian children for ritualistic purposes—and QAnon's ongoing obsession with a global elite of bankers also has antisemitic undertones.
 * 4) On August 12, 2020, Cecelia Celeste Fulbright was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Waco, Texas. Fulbright chased and rammed into another car whose driver she claimed "was a pedophile and had kidnapped a girl for human trafficking". She had made many posts online relevant to QAnon beliefs and sent a friend a text message saying that Trump was "literally taking down the cabal and the pedophile ring".


 * There are some unreliable sources that are notable for one bit of bullshit, but there are others (QAnon, Infowars, Jihad Watch, OpIndia, The Daily Stormer, Coast to Coast AM...) where reporting all of the bullshit they generate is like drinking out of a firehose. In those cases we should limit ourselves to what is covered in multiple reliable sources, not just by ADL, which tries to cover all of it, not just the most notable subset.


 * Lets look at Cecelia Celeste Fulbright. One "local crime" report in the Waco Tribune-Herald that doesn't mention QAnon (it does give another plausible explanation: "delusional and under the influence of drugs, blood alcohol content more than double the legal limit multiple cans of spray paint in her car) and no other coverage. Only the ADF makes the QAnon connection.


 * Someone once commented "if you count the number of murders committed because "satan told me to do it" and the number where "god told me to do it" the later number is far larger. I could dig up a spraypaint-huffing idiot who committed crimes because of what they read on Wikipedia or in The Bible, but we wouldn't put the incidents on those pages because that would be WP:UNDUE.


 * I say find another reliable source that specificly mentions QAnon and don't include anything that is only sourced to the ADF (ignoring sources that are obviously parroting the ADF or Wikipedia). Then cite both ADL and the other source. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

, four different accounts apparently working under the direction of ADL as part of concerted effort of "adding ADL sources" added those, which clearly falls under WP:CITESPAM. They dislcosed they've used eight accounts. Four of those eight edited this article.Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Graywalls (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but that still. does not mean the content can't be re-worked or discussed, rather than just deleted.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Could be, but could doesn't mean shall be. It's a relatively standard procedure to remove systematic spamming. Just really pulling this out of thin air, but if eight employees from an automotive magazine were using Carsdriverspublicist(name here) were putting "according to our xxx magazine" "this vehicle gets to 0-60 in xxx seconds" on every model of car that can be sourced to their magazine, systematic rollback isn't unreasonable. Sure, it's verifiable, but whether the inclusion is due or not is another. To prevent the creation of spam tolerance attitude, reverting such isn't unreasonable. If we let it be, other publishers will see it as something they can try with a fair chance of contents sticking. So removal would be a good way to avoid problems down the road. Graywalls (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I am with Graywalls on this one. It is easy to only see the immediate effect of a policy while forgetting that people change their behavior in reaction to those policies. The Pirates of Penzance thought it would be a good idea to not rob orphans, only find that all of their potential victims claiming to be orphans. Allowing the edits to stay will teach future spammers that there is now a way to get their spam to stick as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"two 4chan moderators"?
I'm was very confused about these two sentences


 * In November 2017, Paul Furber, Coleman Rogers, and Tracy Diaz, two 4chan moderators and a YouTuber respectively, worked together to propagate QAnon to a wider audience.
 * A livestream archive appeared to show 4chan moderator Coleman Rogers logging in to the 8chan Q account during a Patriot's Soapbox livestream.

No active 4chan moderator has ever spoken to media or broken the anonymity code - but actually that's besides the point, because I believe what's happened here is an innocent clerical error. These are 8chan moderators, not 4chan moderators. I've identified the source of this error is from this article:


 * https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531

Now, I understand verifiability, no original research, etc, but this small error is pretty major. If it were any other typo, we could get round using [sic]. If one were to report this error to NBC, should we rely on the assumption they'll correct it so we can? Or should we correct it in the article and add a note in the cite footnote. Or should this source be discarded. JAYFAX (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If there's an error in the source, the publisher should be contacted so they can correct it. Out of curiosity, how have you determined that's an error? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW the formal "anomymity code" was a Moot thing and has been gone for years - since then multiple moderators have spoken anonymously to various sources, eg. . It was more true back when Poole was in charge but things have changed a lot since then. It is possible the source is mixing up 4chan and 8chan, but if so I'd want a list of other sources for comparison to be sure; there are definitely sources saying the same thing, eg.  - the latter one is careful to distinguish between 4chan and 8chan, and still says that Furber and Coleman were moderators of the 4chan board that contained "Q drops," and Diaz was a far-right conspiracy-theory YouTuber. At the very least we'd need a source that clearly contradicts these, especially since your logic is a bit handwavy (no matter how much 4chan moderators are / were supposed to stay anonymous, it's hardly unlikely that journalists could discover them or that they could reveal themselves after they moved to another site.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

QAnon now pushes alarming conspiracy myths targeting China and Jewish people
"Experts on extremism are warning about a troubling shift in the right-wing QAnon movement toward a new vein of conspiracy that blends anti-Chinese and anti-Jewish tropes with fears of vaccines and a global plot to take over the world."

Source: QAnon now pushes alarming conspiracy myths targeting China and Jewish people -- Los Angeles Times --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Qanon originated from and is associated with 4chan's /pol/ board, which has a long history of anti-Jewish and anti-Chinese sentiment. I wouldn't describe it as a shift though, it seems that there has always been a significant overlap of Qanon believers and people with anti-Jewish and anti-China beliefs. Avithemom (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Wu Ming
My edit about Wu Ming was reverted. The edit was done because, as I stated, Wu Ming is not a foundation but a group, there is nothing in the Wikipedia article about Wu Ming that it is leftist, and even if it were leftist, that would not be of any relevance here.

The reason quoted by the person reverted was the source. However, if the source gives a wrong information, there is no reason to trust the source more than a long and obviously trustworthy article in our own Wikipedia. --Bernardoni (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wu Ming Foundation is a collective that formed from the Wu Ming writing group. And it's the Foundation that made the statement, so the citation is correct. The Wu Ming article likely needs expanded to cover this fact. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

"Oath enforcers"
A new group pushing some related stuff that probably needs an article.. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks to be more closely related to Sovereign citizen movement than QAnon. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021
Add the following categories:
 * Category:Conspiracy theories involving Jews
 * Category:Millenarianism
 * Category:Pseudoscience
 * Category:Syncretic political movements
 * Category:Western esotericism 94.252.53.122 (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Logos and flags
I see you are the creator of both the logo and flag used in QAnon. Ignoring for a moment that that is an odd section for them, do you have any reliable sources supporting the claims that they are a "common logo used by QAnon followers" or a QAnon flag, respectively? While I don't think that you are just making up designs and claiming that they are widely used by QAnon followers, it would be nice to have some sourcing so that people can verify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

"or simply Q"
The first sentence of this article states that QAnon is sometimes referred to as just "Q", but I don't think that's accurate. Q is the subject of the conspiracy theory, but QAnon is the conspiracy theory. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen very many sources referring to QAnon as just Q. Internetronic (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, anon is the name given to anonymous posters on imageboards. Q is the name that the person or persons go by. QAnon is just an amalgam of the two, that QAnon is an anonymous imageboard poster who goes by the name Q. I think QAnon is more common among people who are less familiar or less 'true believers', while adherents will use simply 'Q'. That being said, the header should probably mention what Q is before going into the surrounding conspiracy about satanic cabals. Otherwise it's just confusing for readers. I'd recommend something along the lines of "QAnon or Q is a person or group of people who anonymously post conspiritorial messages on internet imageboards. Adherents believe that they are a high level insider of the Trump administration and that they are fighting a shadow war against a cabal..." and then go into the details of the conspiracy. Just my 2 centsFullmetalalch (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Disproven and discredited
I agree that this is redundant. If something is disproven it is also discredited. The lead should try and be succinct as possible. Aircorn (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They are not synonyms. “discredited” has a greater depth of ‘disproven-ness’ (for want of a better word) than merely “disproven”. See the difference in the dictionary definitions: e.g. this and this. Discredited has a sense of utterly trashed as opposed to being merely incorrect: that its integrity as a proposition was flawed and not just that it was wrong. As discredited must also include disproven whereas disproven doesn’t necessarily include discredited, “disproven” could be omitted. However, neither seem appropriate for QAnon. To be discredited it must have had credit at some point for that credit to be lost. That was never the case. It was always bogus or a hoax and those sorts off words are more appropriate. DeCausa (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Its a lead. If we want to get into detail on slight differences the body is the place to do it. (Note that neither is mentioned in the body) The average reader is not going to really know or care about the difference and it just makes the opening sentence seem silly. Aircorn (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure how your reply relates to what I wrote. (It doesn’t.) I didn’t say anything about going into the detail of this in the lead or anywhere else. Maybe if I simplify what I said: from the current wording, “disproven and discredited”, “disproven” can be deleted. Or better still both can be replaced by “bogus”. DeCausa (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are correct. Was rushing out when I wrote this and didn't give it the correct attention. Aircorn (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * no problem. DeCausa (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

siete vergognosi
che Dio vi fulmini
 * It might help if you typed this out in English.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2021
There is no such thing as QAnon. There is Q and there is Anon. You should stop slandering something you know nothing about. 68.80.233.195 (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The 346 sources currently used in this article are more than enough to support the fact that "QAnon" exists. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * also see wp:legal.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The thought terminating cliché that There is no such thing as QAnon. There is Q and there [are Anons]. is relatively new. Before drop 4881, QAnon adherents happily identified themselves as "QAnon"'s. This is historical revisionism unsuitable for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 16:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To add, you can't slander that which does not exist.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just popping in to point out that "slander" is spoken defamation. The written form is "libel". Comrade GC (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Much like most QAnon supporters, this person left this here as a proverbial brown bag on fire on an doorstep and left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.146.230 (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just popping in to tell @Comrade GC that, sadly, we live in a world where the English language has been decimated, and there are now a plethora of words which no longer have their original, specific meanings, and consequently "slander" is, nowadays, valid when referring to written defamation. One day the English language will be nothing more than emoticons... FillsHerTease (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * MAybe, but we still have policies and one is wp:legal.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is there so little focus on defusing Qanon?
"Efforts to defuse QAnon" is embarrassingly brief and vague compared to other incredibly niche and obscure and obsessively detailed minutea. That two page "journal" article by Sophia Moskalenko & Clark McCauley is a joke.

They dismiss and compare ISIS to Qanon that began on an obscure and reviled internet forum in 2017 to millions of believers, members of congress and who's group is responsible for more deaths on U.S. soil than ISIS in, oh, ever?

Oh yes and completely against the prevailing academic view:

https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/tliexqdu/release/1

https://ctc.usma.edu/the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-a-security-threat-in-the-making/

https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10868

https://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/view/437

https://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1158&context=studentresearch

https://journals.lib.sfu.ca/index.php/jicw/article/view/2816

All published well before that "article" which is two pages and is comparable to a newsletter piece not a serious academic study, are all ignored but that one gets put in not even 2 weeks after publication?

It's completely emblematic of course of this entire article, there's a voyeuristic fascination with the nuts and bolts of the theory without any regard of the real world damage to people's lives.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2021/04/12/reseda-children-fatally-father-appears-at-memorial/

"“She believed that the city they were living in was unsafe and that there was a sex-trafficking ring and that most of the city was involved in it.” Miller also said Carrillo believed her children were being pulled into the sex-trafficking ring."

What does that sound like to you? Do you think this is the only one?

Oh and what about the social damage?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/09/14/qanon-families-support-group/

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/15/957371294/how-qanon-like-conspiracy-theories-tear-families-apart

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/12/tech/qanon-followers-family-lost-loved-ones/index.html

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-08-24/how-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-is-affecting-australian-families/12564566

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-18/post-trump-qanon-conspiracy-side-effects-divide-families

There's 100s of these, hundreds. Barely any mention.

And what, half a line from a former Qanon follower? When several have come out publically talking about how they fell into it and why, those may be questions that are relevant here I dont know, I'm not a wikipedia contributer.

https://www.google.com/search?q=former+qanon+believer&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBAU913AU913&oq=former+qanon+believer&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60l2j69i61.4615j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Not looking at all angles of deffusing Qanon is like having a COVID-19 article with 4 lines about vaccinations. This entire thing is a bloated, verbose and weirdly sycophantic record of Qanon, its like just talking about it arouses all of you.

For shame, do your job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.31.182 (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean by this, it is not our job to defuse anything. But merely to record it. Covid is different, as I am sure 3.2M deaths should be able to clearly demonstrate. Moreover, as far as I can tell, about a third to a half the article is analysis and criticism of Q.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Is it not your job to record these efforts? I did not say Qanon = Coronavirus, I said that for a currently in progress problem, that is widespread, ongoing efforts to solve it are relevant and should be noted. I also pointed out that the "analysis" is completely devoid of actual published academia sans 1 piece that barely deserves the name. The last more general point I made was that this entire article is a mish-mash of outdated and incomplete information, slavishly layered with lashings of shock content. Almost all of the "analysis" is just references to the crazy beliefs and people who makeup Qanon. There's not even a noting of Lin Wood's recent acitivites as the new proxy Q nor his comments.


 * https://thebulwark.com/lin-wood-is-just-asking-questions/


 * https://www.rawstory.com/lin-wood-2652847377/


 * But your response explains a lot, really, "its not our job to defuse anything", "there's a lot of words that are similar to ones smart people use" and "Covid kills way more people".


 * Seriously? You addressed like 3 points out of maybe a dozen, with the answers of "eh we dont solve problems" to the point of "note and record attempts to solve problem", "theres a lot of stuff in here that people have said about Q" to "there's too much stuff in here about what people have said about q and not about what q has done to people" oh and the crowning glory of "covid and qanon are not literally the same thing" to "covid and q are different but here's why they are similar".


 * Do your job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.31.182 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * (Its not our job! We did our job! We arent employees! Reasons! Ban him for warring so we can ignore everything!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.31.182 (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would like to suggest some text to be added? It is as much your "job" as it is ours; as you are apparently aware, editors here are volunteers. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That is a very fair, well more than fair point, and I completely agree that it is what should happen. At least on my part, and I would do it, put some drafts here in order to correct any issues with Wikipedia's rules or other feedback from experienced editors. But there's a conflict of interest as I'm personally involved indirectly and directly within that effort to defuse Qanon and would more than likely, rightly or wrongly, feel simultaneously obligated and conflicted about including myself in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.31.182 (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a wp:coi does not prohibit you from making suggestions for edits here. Also can you please sign, and learn to indent. Its had to tell who has been saying what.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021
Change ref 94 from newspaper quotation to original source : https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/after-the-ballots-are-counted-conspiracies-political-violence-and-american-exceptionalism/ 84.98.218.133 (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The secondary source establishes that the survey is noteworthy enough to remark upon, and verifies the quote. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021
Q is not QAnnon (this is a misnomer). It is not discredited except by those who it targets or finds political offense by it. Its not a far right conspiracy it is neither left nor right. It is a truth seeking operation. 153.25.178.60 (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You need RS supporting your claim, have you any?Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly my point... search qanon pub then keyword search republican (the link to the Q posts are blacklisted for some crazy reason) this is a perfect example of the content they want suppressed.
 * You need reliable sources - absence of sourcing is not confirmation of anything. Please stop abusing the encyclopedia to post QAnon speculation.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, sleep sleep.
 * What your point is that you are being asked to provide sources,?Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

And I want to thank Wikipedia, I have been a long time user and financial supporter of the platform. It helped me earn my undergraduate and MBA degrees.
 * What?Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead paragraph two
Paragraph two currently says, "QAnon commonly asserts that Trump has been planning a day of reckoning known as the 'Storm'...". That should be in the past perfect tense ("had been planning") because while out of power, he has no ability to mount such a day of mass arrests. Mathglot (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You would think so but, per some of the die-hard believers, Trump is still the one in power and is only pretending to let Biden be President. The entire movement is insane, the true believers still think Trump is going to turn everything around. Any minute now... &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021
The opening summary states that QANON conspired against Donald Trump, while the rest of the article, as well as the citations for that very sentence, state that they support him. I suggest changing "conspired against former president Donald Trump" to "conspired in favor of former president Donald Trump". 2600:1014:B019:5D3D:0:56:27CE:C401 (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. Read the sentence again. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"Academic Assessment" section violates Wikipedia's Reliable Sourcing policies
The "Academic assessment" section makes the claim that "A 2021 study by psychologists suggested that, while QAnon's bizarre and radical opinions are widespread, "only 56 QAnon followers have actually committed any ideologically-motivated crime in the U.S."" and cites this paper (187):

https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/customsites/perspectives-on-terrorism/2021/issue-2/moskalenko--mccauley-.pdf

This paper does make this claim by citing source [19], but this source does not exist on the citation page.

The statement is then leveraged to support the authors' opinions, even using the phrase "the authors believe that..."

This section strays pretty far from Wikipedia's Reliable Sourcing and Original Research policies and either needs to be reworked, recited, or removed.

LouGoodwin (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying this is not an RS? If so wp:rsn might be a better place to raise the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the source, I have to agree. The actual citation for that statement is missing in the source PDF. Given the entire paragraph is based on a cite of a cite, and the actual source is not actually listed, I agree that it's not appropriate to maintain in the article. I'm removing it for now until we can find an actual source for the statements. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Include or not?
I'm not a fan of Vice News, never read it, never used it here, though I don't actually have a good reason to challenge it; it's yellow on WP:RSP. Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman was previously notable for:

And now this from Vice:

soibangla (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Information on the Sabmyk Network
As the Sabmyk Network redirects here, but is totally not mentioned on the page, I think some information is needed on this offshoot. I'm no expert, but here is what I came up with:

However, I'm not sure where this could be included (or if it is too much for this page). --Bangalamania (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have WP:BOLDly added the content to the "disillusionment" section of this article. --Bangalamania (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

QANon without Q?
I feel it would be useful to add to the article that at this point that the last confirmed Q drop was on December 8th 2020 (according to this article on Bellingcat, which is a reliable source) and hence Q has either ceased posting or is on by far their longest hiatus (same article says there were no posts between August and November 2019). As QAnon supporters are still coming up with things (such as the Sovereign citizen derived stuff and the Sabmyk stuff, which are already in the article) the conspiracy theory has moved beyond reliance on Q themself. However, I'm not sure where to put this. Perhaps a new section? Something like 'QAnon Post-Q'? A sentence in the lede would probably also be justified although it's already excessively long. Perhaps the lede needs a new edit to focus on the big picture. I can edit, but given the sensitivity I thought I'd see what the consensus is first. --Shimbo (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we maybe able to say that Q has not posted in 6 months, but am a bit wary that could change suddenly.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I do think that at some point we somehow need to start distinguishing between claims and predictions made by Q themself and claims and predictions made by 'QAnon supporters' (for example the March 4th stuff was not a prediction made by Q). Of course Q could resume posting at any moment, but QAnon appears to be carrying on without them. This article from The Independent, this from Foreign Policy and particularly this from Vox could be referenced in a new section discussing how QAnon has evolved in 2021 without any input from Q themself. --Shimbo (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hence why "QAnon[a] (/ˌkjuːəˈnɒn/), or simply Q, is a discredited American far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a cabal of Satanic" and not "QAnon[a] (/ˌkjuːəˈnɒn/), or simply Q, is a discredited American far-right conspiracy theorist alleging that a cabal of Satanic". This is about the conspiracy theories, not the person.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm pedantic, but should we be calling 'Q' the conspiracy theory? My understanding is that 'Q' refers to the individual(s), and 'QAnon' – while originally referring to the individual behind Q – is the name of the theory.
 * I do think a QAnon-post-Q section would be good to include to update the article (the articles linked by look great). As mentioned by the Independent reference linked, the article should go into greater detail re the full impact of January 6 on the movement: social media crackdowns leading QAnon believers to being driven underground (using apps like Telegram) and more schisms in belief (e.g. "GhostEzra" (Daily Dot article)). Sabmyk and greater uptick in sovereign citizen beliefs definitely should be included in that section if it's created.
 * Q's silence (even if it is temporary) is also notable to include – the article can always be updated at a later date if this changes. – Bangalamania (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I reluctantly agree with this. It's becoming increasingly obvious that the person behind Q will probably never post as him again, and although that might change at any moment—as Slatersteven mentioned—for the immediate future, it's probably for the best that we mention Q's last drop, and when he posted it. SgtShyGuy (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Reporting of Q's drops.
I feel like this article doesn't nearly get enough into detail about Q's posts, how they changed over time, and how they were interpreted. While there is a section dedicated to general claims made by Q, and how they failed miserably, any details about the drops themselves are fairly scarce.

Seeing as these posts are central to the QAnon mythos, I think it's only appropriate that more direct coverage, and scrutiny be applied Q's posts. A section about the format of the drops, how they were distributed among the online ecosphere, and how they were interpreted by larger curators, perhaps?

--SgtShyGuy (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think QAnon is sufficiently detailed.
 * If by "direct coverage", you mean a section which explains these patterns, the way to start would be to look at how reliable sources handle this. Perhaps start with a specific source and go from there. Reliable sources are also independent sources for this.
 * "Curators" are typically unreliable and primary, here, also. For a lot of reasons, we really, really should not include direct coverage of Q's posts without context. One of many problems is that these posts are not coherent or consistent, so these patterns are basically meaningless. Therefor, scrutiny requires context and actual expertise to be meaningful. To be clear, these patterns absolutely exist, but they cannot be used to imply any conclusions by themselves. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, we do not just repeat lies and bullshit, we report analysis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Removals
No mention that reddit removed several sub reddits that were very active in spreading the Q consiracy theories.

2603:8001:3846:2D00:3DFD:6A11:4CA5:A9B1 (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There actually is already some discussion of subreddit removals in the article. If you feel there is something important left uncovered, you should look for a reliable source that covers it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

New Religious Movement?
Do you believe Qanon is a New Religious Movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybufffanatic2005 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do any RS say it is one?Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done a quick search and found these sources discussing the matter, which seem to be WP:RS for this:, , . There's also a source from Christianity Today, which I think is appropriate as a reference in this context: , though I think it needs attribution if we used it in the article.
 * As for my personal opinion -- I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between what one person calls a cult and what another calls an NRM. A lot of NRM scholars have an aversion to the term cult, and it seems that practically anything that is called a cult by one group will be called a NRM by another. The use of religious imagery and cult-like tendencies of QAnon are mentioned in the article. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think then we can say "some have described it as..."Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although I'm not sure where the best place is for this information. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say Reactions as this seems to fit that, how people are describing it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think then we can say "some have described it as..."
 * Nah, that falls afoul of WP:WEASEL.
 * Also, that link to The Conversation looks like an editorial/opinion piece, so I'm not sure we can use it.
 * The Open Democracy link calls it a "syncretic movement," and Christianity Today calls it an NRM. We could basically phrase it like that:
 * QAnon has been called a syncrectic movement and a new religious movement. with cites in appropriate places. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have added this, and the cult claims (which were made in the lede but not in the body of the article), to the "Reactions" section. –Bangalamania (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2021
There are 31 occurrences of the word 'Russia' in the English-language article. There is a negative context in each case. There is only one occurrence of the word 'Россия' in the Russian-language and the context is neutral. Bring both versions to the common political ground. 49.3.22.203 (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why?Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

QAnon venomously opposes vaccination.
These sources state that QAnon opposes vaccination venomously. To address the need to also consult the English monarch's permission to change leadership for Canada, there also exists the claim that Queen Elizabeth II was executed. The Epicness9000 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/completely-false-anti-vaccine-cease-and-desist-order-prompts-complaints-to-police-1.6088212?fbclid=IwAR0wQpf0olOdaRm-zFwCH9CJ4gWO3zI9UjjL-2sqGWbrQ2JdNKm16rtk2_o

https://www.antihate.ca/_lead_in_the_head_self_declared_canadian_prime_minister_and_qanon_adherent_calls_for_executions_of_officials?fbclid=IwAR3wvLcXBsOD05K5jE4mH4W6riWX0gO7xcD6BN75DI39_ytNX8LyuMZKB_U

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3aqvkw/qanons-are-harassing-people-at-the-whim-of-a-woman-they-say-is-canadas-queen-romana-didulo?fbclid=IwAR10-QM-K7ra1gN4z8dbeK-S8ifo4RzWOrIXylpWTmWL-HEc7eSGI_CMbc0

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/06/fact-check-romana-didulo-is-not-the-commander-in-chief-of-canada.html?fbclid=IwAR0TufFLD5aZFD_9yNYidRXqHWL62kW8C1UjtIJH18Q353ffbCDetWHFVQQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Epicness9000 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

New incident
I think this deserves a mention because it’s really heinous, even by Q standards. 2604:2D80:6986:4000:0:0:0:3474 (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * it is one incident that tells as nothing about QAnon.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2021
The article says the theory is disproven, which is biased. I would remove the word "disproven". 2800:A4:31FC:7000:44D9:A20B:22F4:D096 (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Java Hurricane  13:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A credible theory should make predictions that can be verified, so the list of failed predictions should be sufficient to conclude that the theory is "disproven". Even evidence of satanic canniballistic pedophiles will not prove the theory (they may be apolitical cannibals), so multiple reliable sources will be needed to claim otherwise. Markuswestermoen (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it a theory or a movement?
Right now this article says that: "QAnon is a disproven far-right conspiracy theory .." While Q-Anon at the core is based on ideas of satanic pedophiles, to mee it looks like Q-Anon is now more of a misinformation network/movement, and a source of baseless conspiracy-theories, like the lists of false predictions and claims show. I would prefer to define Q-Anon as a movement or a conspiracy theory group. While the original Q-Anon conspiracy theory is disproven, a stunning 17% once believed it, and new ridicolus theories (election, vaccines) replace older and less popular theories. QAnon seems to live on as a movement. QAnon is a misinformed and/or malicious movement, and a potential danger to truth and democracy, which should not be "dismissed" as a disproven theory. Markuswestermoen (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think RS treat it as both. but at its core, it is a series of conspiracy theories rather than a movement as suchSlatersteven (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see it as a religious movement.Boringname76 (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Request edit to first sentence of article, unproven vs disproven
“QAnon [a] (/ˌkjuː.əˈnɒn/) is a disproven far-right conspiracy theory”

For this statement I suggest we swap out disproven with unproven. Why? I see no supporting evidence proving it never happened in the supplied sources. Even it being highly unlikely its still not possible to prove a negative so vague as this conspiracy theory. It would be of a higher standard of a neutral perspective to say it’s unproven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messengerone (talk • contribs)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reliable sources state that there is no basis to QAnon, so that's what Wikipedia reports. NPOV demands that we not give credence to something that entirely lacks credibility.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Flynn is a highly prominent figure in QAnon world
You don't find it significant that some QAnon followers now suspect he's a Satanist, ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=QAnon&diff=1049079378&oldid=1049079144

soibangla (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is trivial sillyness.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2021
Q anon does not support the theory that Trump was implicate in the russian collusion They support the recently declassified US Gov report which I have a copy of, that states Hilary Clinton was briefed on discrediting Trump through Russian collusion Also WWG1WGA was not taken from a movie it was engraved on the bell of JFKs private boat. 90.216.175.13 (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Care to provide some wp:rs supporting this?Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The JFK bell thing is fiction - its invention is explained here. DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2021
Within 'US QAnon child murders' please make children either son & daughter or boy & girl. 94.126.214.30 (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ and thanks. It took me a minute to see what you meant! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks 94.126.214.30 (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ceased posting?
Should there be some note that post-Dec 2020 Q has not posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.103.211 (talk • contribs) 11:24, July 18, 2021 (UTC)

QAnon Did Not Conspire Against Trump
This is revisionist. It's a pro-Trump conspiracy. https://www.bbc.com/news/53498434 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.90.189.157 (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to the line in the lead, it says the group that's purportedly conspiring against Trump is "a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic pedophiles". As far as I can tell, the current version of the article never suggests that QAnon itself involves any anti-Trump conspiracies. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Err we say it is a claim they are making, not that they are it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope my change now clarifies what we meant.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion.
Have a banner at the top of this talk page which reads “Dear QAnon supporters: You all got duped by a 4chan troll(s). This article reflects that. Thank you”. Perhaps it would deter future nonsense topics. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:94D3:B99F:B4EF:F951 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Er, not my intention. I want people to get a reality check instead of ranting online about so-called “leftwing bias”. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:94D3:B99F:B4EF:F951 (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This does not do that.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this even real?
Is it possible you're all being trolled? QAnon is so ridiculous that I wonder if Wikipedia and other have been fooled into thinking it's real. These people can't really believe the idiocy they espouse. It has to be fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Is it not possible it's real but that it's also a cult? I mean Jeffrey Epstein is unalive, Harvey Weinstein is in jail, Prince Andrew is being prosecuted, other offenders have been uncovered, we know they are being protected by powers greater than are talked about in the media... Is it not possible that calling it a conspiracy theory is just to hide the fact that it is probably true to some extent but that it's also attracting cultists who are bringing their own unrelated politics into it? 173.35.240.92 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

QAnon: Nazi cult?
has reverted my change of the description of QAnon from a cult with roots in antisemitism and Nazism to "a cult". I do not see how Nazism is a prominent aspect of reliable sources coverage of QAnon, and even in the article, it is only mentioned that a single scholar, Gregory Stanton, has described QAnon as such. I think the fact that some of the major QAnon ideas like "Adrenochrome harvesting" are strongly reminiscent of antisemitic canards like blood libel, which have been frequently noted in reliable sources, are probably worth mentioning in the lead, but further down, and better elaborated on that simply stating that it has "roots in antisemitism". Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I wrote "has roots" rather than "is rooted" because it may not be fully rooted in Nazism, but has some roots, as the body explains. soibangla (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The body does not explain that QAnon is rooted in Nazism, it states that many ideas of QAnon are rooted in long-standing antisemitic tropes, many of which have little to do with Nazism directly. MOS:LEAD states: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. I do not see how the tenuous Nazi connection, which is not prominent in the discussion of QAnon in reliable sources, is worthy of the second sentence of the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then why did you remove the mention of anti-Semitism too? I tend to agree with removing the over-specific Nazism mention, but I think removing all mention of the at least partial basis in longstanding anti-Semitic tropes is excessive.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And by the way, your interpretation of WP:ONUS generally applies to the addition of disputed material, not the restoration of cited material that has gained consensus, but which one editor objects to.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where was consensus gained on talkpage for the sentence? Consensus for content does not necessarily exist just because it is in the article. I've added a new sentence on antisemitism, see diff. Its worth noting that even the ADL reported the vast majority of QAnon-inspired conspiracy theories have nothing to do with anti-Semitism back in 2018 . So it's important that the claims are not given undue weight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was speaking about broad practices as they relate to WP:BURDEN. In this specific case, the mention was added by Solbangla on October 11. I think your adjustment is fine. My chief concern was the entire removal.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Split of incidents is good
let's just go with it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I must've missed prior discussion of that. soibangla (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no prior discussion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The split was done because the original article was 72kB. Per WP:SIZERULE, the article should be split then, and I figured the incidents section was distinct enough to warrant its own article. Love of Corey (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Since/if this is done, there should be some kind of a summary of incidents in this article. I propose a you-know-what-by-now — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Love of Corey (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is curious, the magically mysterious new article is Timeline of incidents involving QAnon. soibangla (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Q-anon
Wow Wiki...Q-anon description so unbiased!!😂😂😂 Who was the author?? 2600:1000:B127:C4B1:E0EB:125:481A:B9E3 (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * In what way?Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , well, the IP did say it's unbiased, so job well done everyone. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021
Change "movement" to "cult" in first line. 76.109.170.235 (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We need RS calling them that.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Conservatism
I've seen a recent addition then revert of the box. It's obviously related to conservatism and the categories and WikiProjects also reflect that (its themes also exploit related fears of its target audience). If the box belongs in the article is another matter, though (and QAnon conspiracy theories do not necessarily reflect the views of traditional US conservatism)... — Paleo Neonate  – 18:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * yes I removed it because the editor who put the conservatism box in the article, also added a link to QAnon to the template before. There was no consensus on adding QAnon to the template and there was no consensus on adding the box to this article. That AND the fact that the term "conservative" only appears three times in the QAnon article and never as a descriptor was my reasoning for the revert. Right now there simply was no sourced connections in my opinion. If QAnon is obviously related to conservatism then we need to show this in the article body before adding the box (imo). -- Best, Mvbaron (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Somebody reading about Qanon for the first time
This article claiming to cover a conspiracy theory does itself read like a conspiracy theory. There is a noticeable lack of internal consistency, it's linking together events with questionable connection and the general tone is alarmist. Can we clean it up to fix these flaws? While we are at it, can we make sure the sources we pull from don't have the same flaws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.0.23 (talk • contribs)


 * I, for one, am certainly open to hearing specific recommendations. QAnon has been inconsistent itself and thus can be difficult to document. soibangla (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given how much of this stuff came out of 4chan, 8chan and general crazies on the internet (at least that is what the article says), it makes perfect sense that it is inconsistent and difficult to document. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the first few paragraphs on the page. That way somebody who is reading about this group for the first time will be prepared for the sea of crazy they are about to wade through. I can't be the only one who wasn't sure if Qanon was a conspiracy theory or if the idea that there was a group called Qanon who believed all this nonsense was the conspiracy theory. 134.197.0.23 (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be far more specific before we can address your concerns. Are there specific examples in the article you feel need correction? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As with the above, what do you mean? And please read wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it has been established that this group is inconsistent and difficult to document, Perhaps making multiple articles related to this page could make the main page less dense and less confusing. An article for it's origins, another for it's beliefs and so on. There is already an article for a timeline of events involving QAnon, so this measure would not be without precedent. 134.197.0.23 (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see a few ways that the organization can be improved -- one good place to start is by chunking some of the information into subheadings. E.g., I added "Polling and demographics" and "international following" as subheadings to "Origin and Spread," to better structure the information there. The section on "Appeal" could probably be turned into a subheading under "Analysis" and the "disillusionment" subsection moved down and consolidated with the section on efforts to defuse.Thewritestuff92 (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)