Talk:QAnon/Archive 4

Size
The page length (in bytes) is currently 191,304. As I understand it, after reading WP:TOOBIG that means it "Almost certainly should be divided". We could certainly make detail articles for "Origin of QAnon", "Claims of QAnon" and perhaps some others along the lines of "Analysis and Comment on the QAnon Phenomena", "Role of QAnon in US Politics", "Criticism, Debunking and Banning of QAnon" The article also has some issues with readability IMO. For example, the lead is much longer than recommended by MOS:LEAD and IMO is neither "a concise overview of the article's topic" or "four well-composed paragraphs" and much of the article body, IMO, needs copy-editing for clarity. --Shimbo (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am unsure this deserves multiple articles, it's not that major. Rather let's discuss education of material.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Given that the article is almost double the maximum length suggested by WP:TOOBIG it would be a tough job to cut it down without sub-articles IMO. I (or someone else) could probably edit the lead down to a more appropriate size, but I'm conscious of just how controversial that would likely be (as would any removal of material, probably). --Shimbo (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it, we can reduce the size but cutting down the "Failed predictions" to one or two examples and then in front "Quanon has made many false predictions such as". We could easily decide much of this, we do not need everything they do or say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say you're going to have to build a consensus before you start drastically reducing the content of the article. I for one am not in favour and my opinion is that sub-articles would be a better approach. I also don't agree that QAnon is "not that major". QAnon was a big factor in a coup attempt in the USA. To me that's pretty major. Also, it clearly gets a ton of coverage in reputable sources and that's what Wikipedia is supposed to reflect, isn't it? Maybe we need an RfC to decide the way forward? --Shimbo (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm against reduction. Size is fine. RfC is disallowed per WP:RFCNOT. Make a concrete split proposal and start a formal process. (e: when I say "against reduction" I mean against further reduction -- a MASSIVE reduction was already undertaken in connection with this discussion: Talk:QAnon, resulting in Timeline of incidents involving QAnon) — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I propose moving the bulk of the content in "Background" and "Origin and Spread" into a sub-article entitled "Origins of QAnon", the bulk of the content in "Conspiracy Claims" into a sub-article entitled "QAnon Conspiracy Claims" and the bulk of the material in "Analysis" and "Appeal" into a sub-article entitled "Analysis of QAnon" Please let me know if there is a more formal process than this for suggesting creation of sub-articles. --Shimbo (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

So: 1	Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Origins of QAnon 2	Origin and spread. . . . . . . . . . . . . Origins of QAnon 3	Conspiracy claims. . . . . . . . . . . . . QAnon Conspiracy Claims 4	Identity of Q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QAnon 5	Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of QAnon 6	Appeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of QAnon 7	FBI domestic terrorism assessment. . . . . QAnon 8	Role in U.S. elections and government. . . QAnon 9	Comments by Trump and connected individuals QAnon 10	Reactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QAnon 11	Incidents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Timeline of incidents involving QAnon (already split out) ... which would leave this article with: Identity of Q                              FBI domestic terrorism assessment Role in U.S. elections and government Comments by Trump and connected individuals Reactions Along with cursory coverage of what was moved out. To me this looks like it would make for a terrible, disjointed, parent article. Splitting needs to both create a viable new article and to present an improvement to the source article. Not only would this not be an improvement here, none of the new articles feel like normal standalones to me. Edit: the formal process for splitting is described here: WP:PROSPLIT. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why you think creating sub-articles would mean the parent article would then only have "cursory" coverage, or "disjointed" remnants of the original article. Isn't the point to have a WP:SUMMARY in the main article and then have the WP:DETAIL in the sub-articles? Currently the background and origins sections are 1,600 words, which on their own are about a five minute read. I don't see how summarising that background info would make the article "terrible" - on the contrary it would seem entirely in keeping with the summary style. Also, as far as I can tell from WP:PROSPLIT the first step of the process is to start a discussion on the talk page? --Shimbo (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Note that TOOBIG is referring to readable prose, not the article including all the Wikimarkup. Per XTools, the actual prose text of this article is about 63k. Still on the big side, but not big enough to require splitting. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. Hardly even on the big side. This is a massively notable topic with vast (vast...) coverage. In all honestly, this article is fantastic in sorting out the crud. It could have been a LOT worse. Work needs more appreciation. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose There is a lot of chaff here we can cut, do we need a huge list of their mistake (for example)?Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the current (medium) size is a management issue, or that it makes the article difficult to read. It's probably easier to patrol when most of the material is at one place...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A good point, which (given Q nature) is highly important.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Discussion
I'm pinging you as the top 5 contributors to the article (by edit count) to answer whether this revision (current) is a good basis for a split. And to comment on the proposed split of Reactions. Thanks — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that the "FBI domestic terrorism assessment" and the "Congressional resolution" are also "Reactions to QAnon" and should be under the same heading? --Shimbo (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, seems reasonable. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote a rough draft of the summary. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see zero benefit to splitting off a "reactions to" article. I still disagree that the article is too long, and throwing the reactions into a separate article will likely lead to arguments trying to put all criticism of QAnon into said sub-article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

False claim about Falun Gong in citation 22, linked article doesn't even mention Falun Gong.
Just wanted to point this out so hopefully someone corrects it in the article. By the end of the second paragraph in the Qanon article it says: "QAnon's conspiracy theories have been amplified by Russian state-backed troll accounts on social media,[20] as well as Russian state-backed traditional media[14][21] and networks associated with Falun Gong.[22]"

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

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


 * Epoch Media Group is associated with Falun Gong - that's widely known and well supported. There's no call to resort to CCP conspiracy theorizing. I've named Epoch specifically in the article to clarify this. MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter, you still need to provide a source. Turtleshell3 (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

What can I do to make the article more neutral?
Any suggestions? I don't really see how I could. Turtleshell3 (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to add something to the article then you need to find a WP:RS that has reported it. If you feel part of the article fails WP:NPOV then the best thing to do would be to raise your concern here on the talk page, but you will need to be specific and you'll need to get people to agree with you. Be polite and make specific suggestions to improve the article. That's it, really.--Shimbo (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


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

To keep the article neutral
I think it would be best to not call it a cult too early, as shown in the lead section. But instead move it to another section where its proponents call it that instead, in my opinion, I think the article is already taking a side too quickly. Turtleshell3 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Problem is that is how a lot of RS describe it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better solution is improving on that passive have been described phrase by spelling out who has been describing QAnon as a cult. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Muboshgu I agree. Turtleshell3 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What. which sources, or which type of sources?Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Slatersteven what do you mean? Do you mean, like maybe perhaps Pew Research? Turtleshell3 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No I mean what I said, when we say "who describe them as a cult" who do we mean. RS call them a cult [] or do we ascribe this to "QAnon and On: A Short and Shocking History of Internet Conspiracy Cults by Van Badham"? Or [] or []. If it were one source that idea might work, its not.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean that it would be stronger to say something akin to Scholars such as so and so call QAnon a cult so that we're clear we're not talking about just Democrats or Antifa calling it a cult. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see, not sure we need the examples, but it might be workable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


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


 * What @Muboshgu said. Turtleshell3 (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, they can just check the sources and see who the scholars are. Turtleshell3 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Body says that it was experts who have described QAnon as a cult, so this is now reflected in the lead. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why I suggested it shouldn't be in the lead section too early. Which is why I think we should move it. Turtleshell3 (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's based on your concern that the article is already taking a side too quickly, right? — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Turtleshell3 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. But this is not a valid concern, because it's based on a premise that neutrality is based on an appearance of balance whereby sides are given space, a fair forum, to present their case. This is a false premise, as it is not the sense of neutrality that we employ (see WP:GEVAL), and fundamentally not how Wikipedia works. We aren't hearing out sides, to then arbitrate on our own, i.e. take a side in the final step. We take what information is available in reliable sources to create comprehensive encyclopedic coverage, regardless of which side someone might associate these sources with. The "sides" we operate with here are: reliable and non-reliable. When something that's happening in society is characterized as a cult by experts, this is obviously something noteworthy and interesting. The first paragraph is generally about what the subject is. Therefore we help our readers understand what QAnon is by including this important piece of information in the first paragraph of the lead, which is merely a summary of the body. If somewhere in the body there were other experts saying how seeing QAnon as a cult is mistaken, we would still have been keeping this sentence in the first paragraph, but also including that other experts don't think it's a cult. It's as simple as that. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So, what would you propose? Hm... maybe we could go off what @Muboshgu said, and describe the scholars that describe QAnon as a cult? Turtleshell3 (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Readers can see which of the sources, and authors thereof, that have called QAnon a cult, we used to make this type of claim (x called y z) by checking out the reference. No need to duplicate reference information in the article in this case. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mm, yeah you're right. Turtleshell3 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Experts have described is an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Turtleshell3 (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, most of these RS are opinion articles. Turtleshell3 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

All being said seems like we're done here with respect to the specific neutrality concern about calling QAnon a cult in the lead; a change was made from passive to active voice to make sure that it doesn't appear to readers that it is something like "just Democrats or Antifa calling it a cult." So I'll mark this as: ✅. Thanks everyone. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * QAnon Gadsden Flag.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2022
Listed as "Far right conspiracy" when should just be "right wing" or "conservative" Jrock1203 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * not according to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * QAnon USA Flag.svg

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

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

Unless sources appear that scholars of cults widely refer to QAnon as such, the term should be removed. Crossroads -talk- 17:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , have you read the first paragraph of QAnon? You appear to be commenting on the lead in isolation to the rest of the article. Please remember that the lead is only a summary of the body, and that only a minimum of citations should be included in the lead per WP:LEADCITE.


 * Also, I have looked at the archives and found a recent discussion about calling QAnon a cult: Talk:QAnon/Archive 4, where a similar concern to yours was resolved by keeping the description as a cult in the lead, albeit attributed to experts. (The specific wording that resulted from that discussion is a bit different than the current wording.) twsabin 17:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (reply is to first paragraph, still looking over second) I have, and that does not include the claim that it is a cult. Being "like" a cult is not the same thing. "Cultish quality" and "a possible emerging religious movement" are not the same thing. Claims that are not directly supported in the body should not appear in the lead regardless of LEADCITE. Crossroads -talk- 17:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I restored the wording that resulted from the already-had discussion. It's just about the attribution. Please see the edit summary: Special:Diff/1071452235. Pinging to comment. twsabin 18:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's an improvement, but the attribution could be better. Right now just saying "experts" implies there is widespread agreement among experts, and I'm not seeing evidence of that. And experts in what?
 * Regarding the sources linked in that previous discussion: This is by a theatre-maker and...occasional broadcaster, critic and trade union feminist. None of these show expertise in a relevant academic field. Her book on internet cults is not by an academic publisher and seems to be using "cult" in the imprecise everyday sense. This is an opinion article, so WP:RSOPINION applies and so we normally would not use it for claims of fact. The author is a professor of practice at the Middlebury Institute’s Center on Terrorism, Extremism and Counterterrorism and a senior research fellow at the Soufan Center. Is this a relevant field for defining "cult" (as opposed to, say, "terrorism")? Why aren't we citing academic sources or at least normal reporting rather than op-eds? The third source is by Steven Hassan and is also an opinion article. I don't think it could be disputed that he's a relevant expert, but the sources in his Wikipedia article show that some other experts don't agree with his views about what groups are cults.
 * This coupled with NPR saying, "Our copy editors [at the Post] are questioning whether we should call it a 'conspiracy theory' or an 'extremist ideology,' " Timberg tells Fresh Air. "Some researchers think it's a cult. Some think it's an alternative reality game", makes me think that it would be best to at the very least describe this as "some researchers" or "some experts". It could probably be improved more from there too. Crossroads -talk- 18:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree about "some experts"; going to make that edit. I think the terrorism professor is a valid expert here because of the well known and researched relationship between cults and extremism/terrorism. His opinion is not cited as fact, it's still relayed as an opinion. "(Some) experts have described" appropriately carries this over. twsabin 18:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it probably should be changed to 'some experts' or 'aspects of a cult' to more accurately reflect the sources. —AFreshStart (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC) (edited – I previously said I would expand on the cult label, but I don't think this is necessary any more) —AFreshStart (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Epstein
my two cents about this in case you want to discuss the matter further. I personally wouldn't oppose the inclusion of Epstein, though I think the text could be trimmed a bit. I would have just written something like "The death of Jeffrey Epstein was the subject of conspiracy theories, some of which brought people to QAnon. Trump is seen by QAnon believers as the only person fighting this underground trade in children for sex" We don't need to include the mention of the British royals here, and I'd say that the mention of Trump's ties with Epstein might be a little unfair : if I'm not mistaken, Epstein knew Trump as he knew pretty much every wealthy socialite in New York. So linking Trump to Epstein is kind of like saying the Beatles were connected to Jimmy Savile's crimes just because they hanged out a bit with him in the 1960s. (anyway, if we used QAnon logic, we might imagine that Trump, being super smart, knew about Epstein's crimes and was pretending to be his friend just so he could monitor him) Psychloppos (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This wording is better, it was more your tone I objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * not "my" tone, as I didn't write the original text. I'm merely inserting myself into the disagreement between you and AFreshStart. ;) Psychloppos (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the person who I reverted.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to re-include your suggested trimmed version. I don't agree with your analogy - it would only work if one of the Beatles said Sir Jimmy Savile liked "beautiful women... many of them are on the younger side", as Trump did with Epstein, or if said Beatle subsequently denied knowing Savile despite evidence to the contrary, or had numerous accusations of sexual assault against them. Plus, there's this. But, alas, we are in original-research territory here, as none of this is covered by the source. It does, however, say: The irony of Trump’s documented association with Jeffrey Epstein—a convicted trafficker and sexual abuser—as well as a number of lawsuits filed against Trump by women and girls—accusing him of harassment, misconduct, or rape—is lost on the QAnon followers. The latter is probably more noteworthy given the context, so I don't mind the Epstein friendship stuff being cut. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , what don't you like about my 'tone'? Not trying to be rude; I just don't see the issue. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the analogy with Jimmy Savile and the Beatles was half sarcastic. What I meant by that is essentially that linking Trump to Epstein's sexual abuse just because they knew each other and because of Trump's uncouthness is somewhat unfair. And anyway, QAnon adherents would probably say that the sexual assault allegations against Trump, just like the tax fraud allegations, are just a super smart front meant to divert attention from his titanic battle against the forces of evil.  Psychloppos (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not think we needed to say "who was linked with a number of high-profile politicians, academics, scientists, entertainers and members of the British royal family (i.e. Prince Andrew) " as this is a kind of guilt by association and the use of "was labeled a suicide" implies it might not have been.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did know that! Apologies if my response seemed harsh, I just think that the two situations are different. But I'm happy to leave this out of the article anyway. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I got you. I think the link with high-profile individuals is relevant when we're discussing how this links to the conspiracy theory of elite sex trafficking (which reflects what the source says), but I can understand the guilt by association part. Again, I'm happy to leave this out if editors prefer, but just trying to explain my edits (though I agree that the suicide bit was worded badly). —AFreshStart (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what one thinks of Epstein's circle of friends, and prince Andrew in particular, I think that they are best left out the QAnon article since as far as I know they are completely unconnected to its subject (unless it turns out that British QAnon advocates consider that prince Andrew heads the cabal or, on the contrary, is the hero who will save the world from those rascally cannibalistic pedophiles). Psychloppos (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with linking to a "high-profile individual" is who do we pick? Why single out (for example) a member of the Royal family, why not Bill Clinton, Les Wexner or Pope John Paul II It implies that the link is stronger, different.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added the trimmed version, with some changes. Should you want to make further changes, please do as you see fit. Psychloppos (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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


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

Detail
just FYI, yesterday I added to the Jim Watkins some detail about Watkins supporting the Pizzagate claims about the existence of a child sex ring, though he did not believe that a pizzeria was involved. At first glance I'd say this is pretty consistent with the way "Q" handled Pizzagate, which he never mentioned by name although he supported many of its claims. I did not use this here as I wished to avoid original research, but IMHO it is one of the many elements which may fuel the suspicion that the elder Watkins is Q, or one of the Qs. I hope you'll find that interesting in case you hadn't noticed. If you have any idea how this little detail may be used here without falling into WP:OR, it might be useful. Psychloppos (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have any particular thoughts on your specific comment, but it's good to note in this section that NYT essentially named R. Watkins as the second Q today. The image of his father was removed as the section is more centered on R. Watkins now and text wasn't long enough to support two standard-size images (the multi image solution was a little ungainly too). I remember seeing from you somewhere (in an edit summary probably) that both images are due. I'd have agreed strongly with that up to this point. Now a GAN item is resolved. Contest? twsabin 19:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I personally wouldn't have removed Jim Watkins' photo since his role in QAnon seems to be pretty central. It would be quite surprising to find out that Ron Watkins has been Q without his father knowing, and it is also plausible that both Watkinses have written as Q at some point (even if Ron was the main person behind the account). If you think that using both images posed a real problem, I won't be arguing over this, though. Maybe the Jim Watkins photo could go into the "multiple individuals" section ? That would still leave Ron's photo as the one illustrating the "Watkinses family" section. Psychloppos (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Both were important. Regardless, R. Watkins is more central for explicitly being Q, according to NYT citing new evidence. I think that it would only make sense for the photos to be attached to the same section. I think it's a real, but an essentially technical, problem due to there not being enough text in the section to support that much visual content (a banal reason I'll admit). If the section was longer, the images could be staggered. I propose leaving this alone for a while, remembering the issue, and if the section is eventually expanded (in a due manner – likely, as there is continuous coverage of the topic), J. Watkins' image could be added back. twsabin 20:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't think having both photos made it particularly difficult to read the section, but maybe that's just me. What can I say, I just like having loads of pictures. 😃 As I said, I think it's a pity not to use the Jim Watkins photo, but I won't throw a fit about this. Psychloppos (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't strongly object to both images being included. If you revert my change and propose the previous, horizontal tiling, formatting as the alternative resolution of the review item, I won't contest. Alternatively, we can leave it like this for a while, and rethink it. twsabin 21:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we can afford to wait a little bit and see if the text expands, thereby giving us enough room to put back the photo. Psychloppos (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've just moved the content related to JFK Jr from the "Disillusionment" section to the "Other beliefs" section. Let me know if that's a problem for you. I've left the Kennedy prediction in the list here because that prediction is so notable (the gathering in Dallas attracted a lot of media attention) and unique that mentioning it twice may not be a problem. I thought we also need to include this in the list of predictions about Trump coming back to power, as it is - by far - the most famous one. You may remove it from the list if you think that's overkill, though. Psychloppos (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems good, I made some minor changes myself, mainly desectioning. twsabin 14:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, I thought that subsections might be useful for readability, and also because COVID is important and the thing about JFK jr is so remarkable (for lack of a better word), but that's fine by me. Psychloppos (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sections don't serve to signal to readers "this is important", but simply to break up text and make it navigable. If sections are short and all them fit the topic of the higher level section, the content should be desectioned. It's a completely "automatic" thing under MOS:OVERSECTION. twsabin 17:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * fine, I was thinking mostly about readability anyway. Psychloppos (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

flurry of edits
In recent days there have been a flurry of edits by 2-3 editors that have proceeded at a dizzying pace. I encourage these editors to make liberal use of edit summaries and to tag edits as minor when appropriate. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I caused you any inconvenience. Psychloppos (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about per se, and their possibly being inconvenienced, it's about a bigger picture. Having more summaries in the history will go a long way to send a message that, yes, the article is being continuously improved—just about making it easier for everyone to see that good work is being done. Edit history is Wikipedia's "proof of work". So consider triaging your edits wrt summaries: (1) one end of the spectrum: substantial change in the article (addition, removal, reorganization, significant rewording etc.)–write the minimally acceptable edit summary such as "add info"/"add image"/"rm failed verification"/"expand w source"/"reorganize"/"rewrite sentence"/"section/desection" etc. (2) other end of the spectrum: edit consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content—just mark it as WP:MINOR w/o summary; (3) everything in between: you've probably seen it... "ce", "+", "-", "style", "trim", "join/split para", etc.–write something. That being said, I endorse your edits, and it's easy to see from wider diffs that your edits are completely rational and justified. Regards twsabin 19:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But I mean, yeah, I see now that you had already begun marking edits as minor, and using summaries, so I think we're just fine. twsabin 19:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, I understand, thank you. I tend to make a lot of small corrections as I'm often unhappy about my wording, so I'll try to keep that in mind. I initially thought that the problem lay in the sheer number of my edits - that they were so numerous it had become an annoyance for the people who have this page on their watchlist. Psychloppos (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you check this edit of mine (diff)? I think that it's an improvement, but I'd like to be more sure. twsabin 22:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll double-check later but at first glance I think your edit makes perfect sense. The "Frazzledrip" story which illustrates this part of the theory should IMHO remain as it is in the "Origins and spread" since, as I just mentioned here, it came quite early in the history of QAnon and probably helped it gain traction. The only problem with your edit is that, now that you have moved the text, the concept of "adrenochrome harvest" appears first in the "Origins" section without being explained beforehand, so people reading the page chronologically will not understand what it is. I'm going to try and fix this. Psychloppos (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Please do. twsabin 23:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * done I hope that's not too explanatory (sorry, I forgot to add a summary for my second edit ! ) Psychloppos (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. Don't worry too much about the summaries. For your receptiveness to feedback and demonstrable flexibility I award you this other recommendation of mine: don't put a space before a colon (like this 'X : Z') 🙂 twsabin 23:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, thanks.  Psychloppos (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Duplicated material
Hello. I think your recent edit duplicated the paragraph starting with "QAnon's precepts and vocabulary – such as" as it now appears twice in two different locations. I'm not sure where you intended to move it so I will leave your edit alone. Endwise (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * woops, thanks for letting me know. I'll have a look and try to fix this. Psychloppos (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just checked. Actually, the content already appeared twice in the page before my edit. I hadn't noticed that my edit was bringing together very similar contents, including near-identical language. Since you brought it to my attention, I just took the opportunity to remove redundant content. Psychloppos (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Paul Furber and Ron Watkins
There's actually very little doubt that these two guys, in succession, wrote the Q messages. The article greatly underplays the weight of the evidence against them. TheScotch (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The recent stylometry evidence which points to Furber and Ron Watkins is still only a few days old. It might be prudent to wait and see if that evidence shifts the opinion or confidence of other sources on QAnon before going gung-ho and having Wikipedia lead the charge on confidence in the theory. Endwise (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, Frederick Brennan had said in 2020 that Furber was probably the first Q, with Ron Watkins taking over (perhaps forcibly) after a few months. The recent study just basically confirmed his theory. Psychloppos (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just meant that the recent studies were reason to be confident in what was originally speculated. Endwise (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. What I meant is that the fact that the info has been basically public for almost two years is another reason not to rush things. :) Psychloppos (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow that. "Don't rush things" because we've already known for a long time? If we've already known for a long time, then how could we possibly rush even if we wanted to? That ship sailed years ago. At this point it's only a question of how belated and sluggardly we want to be. What particularly bugs me is that article shrouds the whole matter in an aura of mystery, when it's really, and transparently obviously, a very simple childish fraud. TheScotch (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been suspected for a long time, but only recently has actual, credible evidence come forward. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the article underplays the evidence against the Watkinses and this Furber fellow. IMO the current version of this page presents in a fairly comprehensive way what we currently know about their involvement and how the evidence gradually emerged. We probably won't know much more until new evidence emerges, or one of these people confesses everything outright, or until they are all indicted and convicted (which would also settle the matter decisively).
 * Please note that I'm not trying to protect their reputation or anything: during the good article review I added the fact that Brennan had theorized in 2020 that Furber was the original Q, shortly before the NY Times published its piece about the linguistic analysis (Furber was already mentioned in the page as an early QAnon promoter, but if memory serves, the connection to Q was missing). Psychloppos (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As HandThatFeeds noted, it was long suspected so not a surprise, but there's even more evidence to support it. As long as the article mentions this in some way it's probably fine, — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

PRRI polling on increased QAnon support


Should this be included? —AFreshStart (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with a sentence about this, the source is also an acceptable secondary source and this allows to avoid original research quoting individual primary sources. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As this apparently hadn't been added to the page, I took the liberty to add it in the "polling and demographics" section. Psychloppos (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Confirming that it's added, it also seems like a fair summary. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * Also, the "validity" of this post seems to be in question:
 * https://mashable.com/article/q-qanon-conspiracy-theory-returns-8kun
 * Thoughts? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Twsabin is also a sock as well. Seems like socks go around in circles... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also also pinging, who also had a hand in promoting the page. While I stand by the rather lengthy (2 1/2 week and 3 editors collectively working on the page) review the page went through, learning that 2 socks had a role in the page is a concerning development. While a cursory glance at User:AFreshStart's GA's doesn't raise any immediate flags, it may be prudent to review these pages as well. Seeing the potential scope of this issue (9 GA's), it may be prudent to escalate this to WP:ANI. Etriusus (Talk) 15:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong but my understanding is that AFreshStart, rather than a sock, was a banned user who came back under another name. I have no idea why he was banned in the first place, as I never had any interaction with him before I worked on that page. IMHO, the concern should be about the quality of the page itself. Sock or not, as far as I can tell he did a pretty thorough job on that article. And anyway he was not alone in that GA business, as I also worked quite a bit on the article at that time. (I should also mention that I have no opinion whatsoever about AFreshStart's other good articles, which I did not even look at) Psychloppos (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one of those rare cases where I actually don't know if we have a policy around this kind of stuff. User:AFreshStart was making legitimate contributions to wikipedia and I cannot find anything that would outright indicate that GA review for everything is immediately necessary, you're right in that we should look at the article not the user. That being said, I've seen WP:ANI discussions vary on how to approach these sort of situations. Worst case, we may need to take it article by article, but I agree that renoming all 9 articles is a bit nuclear in response. I'll mention it at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and see what the admins there think.
 * On a personal note, I would prefer to not renom Qanon but I still think an admin should at least check this out. Etriusus (Talk) 16:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not really the place for this discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I moved the discussion here. Etriusus (Talk) 17:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Where to read Q drops?
There should be a link to them in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.37.159.64 (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:Fringe theories. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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


 * As has been discussed previously on this talk page, QAnon supporters used to be fine calling themselves just that, until Q drop 4881 in late 2020, after which the term was subsequently retconned and supporters seem to pretend it was never used. Endwise (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My dude that is a Qultist you're replying to, they always give themselves away repeating that same line, "There is Q and there are ANONs, there is no QANON." (except this one messed it up because ANON should be plural, nice job champ.)
 * So they literally repeat this line like trained sheep, giving themselves away and stating that "Q" is a thing, "ANON" is a thing, but "QANON", what on Earth could "QANON" possibly refer to?
 * A portmanteau of the two used to describe the phenomenon as a whole including its sociopolitical impacts?
 * No, that cant be it, some mysteries are beyond mortal men, like how a bunch drones repeat the same line over and over again without even knowing it means like a trained response like they were taught, could EVER have the audacity to call anyone else a sheep. 103.169.140.155 (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What? Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The user who posted the message:
 * "There really is no QANON. There is Q and there is ANON. There also is a lot of misunderstanding about how to understand the "drops" Most of what is stated is from sources that seem unfamiliar as to how Q and the Anons function so the majority of what's stated comes from hear say. 142.154.139.36 (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)"
 * Is a Qanon believer pretending to be a neutral concerned party in order to get changes made to the article. They did this through seemingly innocuous questions but gave themselves away by quoting a line that Qanon believers exclusively use i.e. "There really is no QANON. There is Q and there is ANON." 103.169.140.155 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's how it got started. The original poster designating themselves as "Q" can no longer be verified as being the originator of most QAnon content today. For example we have a self-proclaimed "Queen" in Canada right now who is amassing a following - and she is both a Woman of Colo(u)r and doesn't conform to 'gender norms' in terms of 'outward femininity'. So there's that for the present day evolution...which goes far beyond some anonymous liar on 4chan.--SinoDevonian (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * fixed  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump reposts a QAnon “intel drop”
Should this be mentioned? Bunch of coverage from RS at the moment.

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


 * Too recent, it'll probably vanish into the ether within days when nothing happens. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Trump posts something stupid, not exactly news. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2022
QAnon' The term originally referred to the anonymous poster "Q", but the, (ADD:AMERICAN FAR LEFT) media ... ]]. It (ADD : IT IS PRESUMED TO HAVE) originated in the American far-right political sphere in 2017. QAnon centers on : REMOVE :"FALSE" claims, ADD: (PRESUMED TO BE FALSE CLAIMS ) made by an anonymous individual or individuals known as "Q". Bigjohnyappleseed (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I ask that you please consider these more neutral changes to this article. It is currently biased towards the "leftist" viewpoints Bigjohnyappleseed (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We follow reliable sources, and this is how they describe qanon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

De-Hoaxing -- categorization
There is discussion in the archives as to whether Qanon is a hoax. (No conclusions were reached.) And the present article has mentions of "hoax" in some of the RS. But does the RS actually say Qanon is a "deliberately fabricated falsehood masquerading as truth"? Or is the RS expressing its own opinion to disparage Qanon? Either way putting Qanon into a Hoax category is incorrect. Per WP:CAT we need to see the "essential—defining—characteristics of a topic" and hoaxing does not fulfill this requirement. – S. Rich (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a matter for debate. It is largely accepted that the QAnon conspiracy theory is a falsehood, and that it was deliberately created for propaganda purposes. So one may say that the "hoax" category is justified. On the other hand, we don't know yet if the people who originated this conspiracy theory believed in their own claims, and many QAnon influencers seem to actually believe in the theory. Psychloppos (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is kind of the problem, even if it started as a hoax, it is clear a lot of people who now spread it belive it. Hell some people are killing in its name. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a disinformation campaign, using black propaganda. I would not call it a hoax, as propaganda techniques are not hoaxes. Dimadick (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022
Add to the end of Further Reading a new source:

Westmark, Colton R. and Adam M. McMahon. “Identifying QAnon Conspiracy Theory Adherent Types.” New Political Science (2022). doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2022.2129927 Blockquote (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Sirdog (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

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


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

Bias in this article needs to be fixed
Just wanted to add in my frustration about the lack of neutral bias in this article which is an expectation of all Wikipedia sources. I do not hold any opinions for or against "QAnon" movement and have never heard of it until today, which is why I looked at the Wikipedia definition expecting a non-biased description of what it actually is, what its followers believe, etc, however this article's very blatant bias degrades Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia of information, not an opinionated place for people to push their own beliefs. Thucydides2.0 (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't even looked at the article, so I can innocently ask, in what way is it biased? Does the article contradict what reliable sources say? HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have looked, but without knowing what they mean its hard to address it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article does provide a description of "what it actually is, what its followers believe, etc,"in the sections Background, Origin and Spread, and Claims
 * The sections about Reactions and Incidents are just factual reporting, and Analysis is mostly stuff like theories about who 'Q' is, not "Ten Reasons QANon Sucks'.
 * So, really, you're going to need to specify where the bias is. Which specific parts of the article are biased?
 * You could probably also do with reading Wikipedia's policies about Fringe Theories. Shimbo (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's "bias" is towards factual reporting found in reliable third-party sources. This naturally excludes self-published works, and sources with a known reputation for publishing false or misleading information.
 * Which means our reporting on QAnon reflects that of mainstream sources. You can call that bias if you wish, but that's not going to change how Wikipedia handles conspiracy theories and fringe groups. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "and sources with a known reputation for publishing false or misleading information." Ans yet we still source articles to The New York Times, the newspaper which published fabricated stories about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the NYT has declined over the years. I would not object to anyone requesting their reliability be re-evaluated. That said, it's not the topic of this discussion. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Before attempting to have the NYT declared unreliable, you may want to look at the over two dozen previous failed attempts to do so. E.g. this RfC Shimbo (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * If there's no hard, factual connection, it probably won't fit in here. He seems to have bought a lot of the same conspiracy theories QAnon promotes, but that doesn't necessarily make him a QAnon follower. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep.. that is "exactly" what I perceived; I am very glad you took a look at it and came to the same conclusion.. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * this event is very similar as, so far, nothing explicitly Q has turned up even though the ideas clearly are.
 * I think there will continue to be events like this so I’d like to have a better understanding of where I might usefully add this event. I think it’s also worth remembering that for at least six months of the pandemic public health authorities didn’t take these conspiracy theories seriously because they didn’t realise the nature of the dynamic and how these conspiracy theories are being spread and gaining momentum. However now there is a reasonable body of forensic data analysis including some evidence of background links to funding and large scale exploitation of the disinfo terrain as part of info warfare… so my mind does get in convoluted knots because I tend to be a lumper rather than a splitter.
 * I guess it’s constructive for me to look at some history related talk pages to see how this morphing dynamic can be well handled so that I’m better able to understand the options. I’ll get on to that. EthicalAugur (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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


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

I think that Donald Trump is no longer President of the United States. Unless I've gone back in time, which would be unfortunate (re: paradox, etc). I don't want to make any changes to a page on a topic this legendarily stupid without asking first. RoflCopter404 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your idea seems legitimate. How would you improve that quote? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * QAnon still exists as a movement, though diminished in size & influence. They still think Trump is going to save them, and a few believe he's secretly still President & pulling strings from behind the curtain. I don't see a reason to change this to past-tense. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree, it does seem to still be active. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * @Usernamekiran: They all have many aspects, but not all, of popular online fictitious anonymous secret cryptic conspiratorial predictive messages. I didn't add Paul is dead, but it came with the revert. I had added refs at one point, but they were removed. More could be provided but typically aren't included for SA. Perhaps Nostradamus could be replaced with Nostradamus in popular culture or that Ong's Hat could be replaced by alternate reality game, but I think that is unnecessary. Maybe these seemed more relevant when "Q drops" were occurring and the focus was on the messages. MOS:SEEALSO "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics..."
 * What do you think about including Postdiction or Vaticinium ex eventu? Maybe it doesn't matter because followers didn't care if the messages became true or not. StrayBolt (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation
The sentence "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goals of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States." might be a disinformation. This claim has to be first proved in court with proving both that there was an interference and that if it was one that its goals were as stated in this sentence. Unless it is proven (and it is not) delete the whole article. Andra1ex (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that is not how Wikipedia works. We base our articles on information from reliable sources, which are provided in the article. We are not a court of law, and do not hold to the same standards as a court would. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The muller report was debunked forever ago. Nor released an article as far back a March 24th, 2019: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706385781/mueller-report-finds-evidence-of-russian-collusion 174.218.20.9 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Npr
 * 174.218.20.9 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it was not debunked. You can read the article at Mueller report which is heavily referenced. But more on point to the OP, the Russian Government did interfere with the 2016 election in Trump's favor. See Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Source is another wiki page citing predominantly biased left-wing sources? Your joking. Okay, just so we don't turn this into tribal political argument I'll go ahead and pull up the official special investigation by John Durham for your understanding:https://www.justice.gov/sco-durham . In the least the page should take into consideration the pending resolution into the Russian Colusion story. This isn't supposed to be the place to write opinions from a singler perspective. Both major opinions on the matter should be presented from a non-baised perspective. The wiki page on 'Sources' literally state that: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." 174.218.18.71 (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the "no collusion" phrase and narrative are Trump's lies, unfortunately often repeated by reliable sources. There is no evidence Mueller ever said such a thing. here's some reading for you: So it's okay to say that Mueller was unable to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination", even though there is some evidence for it, but it's not okay to say that Mueller did not find evidence of "collusion" or that there was "no collusion" between Trump and his campaign with the Russians. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) False or misleading statements by Donald Trump
 * 2) False or misleading statements by Donald Trump
 * 3) Mueller report
 * 4) Mueller report
 * 5) We need to make a whole article about Trump's false claims of "no collusion"


 * It is OK to say that "not 100% of what Trump has said so far has already been proven to be correct" (although many thins have been proven, e.g., the fact that Covid came from a Chinese bio lab, that therapeutic treatments like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine are effective, etc.), but it is not OK to say that "Trump lies", because you (at least theoretically) can be held accountable for a defamation. The "collusion" is a part of the mass media narrative, unfortunately repeated by most of the mass media, which is clearly an reliable source for many decades.
 * You are either confused or intentionally saying wrong things. The first can can be healed by opening your mind to the possibility of being wrong and then applying logical reasoning instead of watching TV. The second is a deeper problem, but your conscious can also be a cure. I obviously cannot conclude so far which reason (1st or 2nd) is the correct one, but either way it'd be better if both are eliminated and substituted with a mixture of truth and good intentions. 24.228.151.249 (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Read wp:nlt. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * N/A 24.228.151.249 (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "that statement is false and damaging, and I ask that it be corrected." 24.228.151.249 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nor can I find the line you refer to. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * the line is in your own post above 24.228.151.249 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unsure I have even used the word Trump (let alone the line you object to) in this thread. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * it was an answer to the post above "No, the "no collusion" phrase and narrative are Trump's lies, unfortunately often repeated by reliable sources." 24.228.151.249 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That statement you made is inherently biased in of itself. There is a difference between stating reliable sources claim Trump lies to your statement of Trumps Lies as a narrative. You cannot play this one sided opinion rethoric with the subject at hand. I'm not stating this out of agreeing with any one statement but rather of the fact that there is major dispute from within the government on this issue of the FBI report. Especially given the fact that there was a recent 3 year long investigation into Mullers claims which have been widely questioned by many sources and government figures from both sides of the issue for quite a few years now. So this is not a simple matter of stating any one opinion is an absolute lie or truth by fact and the statements on this page eludeding to that subject should be reflective of a neutral stance regardless of personal preference. This isn't a reddit. 174.218.18.71 (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2023
2601:680:8100:3060:69FA:31FD:9774:CBA4 (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think you should be reset, and let somebody else care for this page as the writer is clearly biased to one side of thinking!
 * 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. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 07:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox?
The French Wikipedia has an infobox for it.

Should an infobox be added? 103.169.34.63 (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's needed. Besides that French Wikipedia inevitably has different standards than English Wikipedia, there doesn't seem to be much to create for the English version as a topic, especially compared to larger events it contributed, those being Antisemitism and the Jan6 event. Carlinal (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * the author of this page is writing from a position of authority they could not possess. It would appear they are (A) American Democrat (B) A Trump hater (C) a member of Qanon (D) all of the above 192.174.101.136 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * More than one person edits this page. And read wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Qanon murders
you forgot all the murders that have happened like the surf school Dad in California...all of those incidents need to be mentioned 173.81.58.252 (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All content of our articles has to be supported by reliable sources. Please tell us precisely what you would like to see included, providing links to relevant sources. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is coverage of the QAnon influenced dad who killed his two young children with a spearfishing gun. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Other incidents are covered at Timeline of incidents involving QAnon. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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

I am not alone seeing through this underlying bias here, and see another person has commented "Personally, I think you should be reset, and let somebody else care for this page as the writer is clearly biased to one side of thinking!". Well said as this article is effectively unreadable due to it's overwhelming sickening bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.43 (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * True, we do not need to hammer home the point. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering the IP is screaming "bias," I kinda think we do. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They can be biased themselves and still have a valid point, to over-egg the cake might put readers off by assuming we have an agenda. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * People are going to assume that anyway, even if we cut it down to a single use of "conspiracy theory." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But fewer will if we cut it down. We gain nothing by the overuse of the term, but lose a lot. (I* do sometimes wonder if that is the point, write these articles as if they are written by an 9 year old with a POV to push. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In my experience, it will not result in fewer complaints. I'm fine if you want to rewrite the lines, but we do need to still make clear this is nonsense. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Calling it a conspiracy theory is the conservative take, rather than using descriptors like "stupid" and "insane".  G M G  talk  11:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A breakdown of the phrases involved:


 * William Avery (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine to refer it as a conspiracy theory on first mention and then simply "QAnon" after that. We don't need to repeatedly say "the QAnon conspiracy theory" for the same reason we don't need to repeatedly say "the Titanic ship", "the city of Paris", "the singer Elvis Presley" etc after introducing the concepts of the Titanic, Paris or Elvis Presley. I don't think this will make it any less clear that the idea is bullshit — that's abundantly clear from the article. Popcornfud (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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


 * QAnon as a "movement" or amorphous group is real (just as the Tea Party movement was) and is not a conspiracy theory per se. The group peddles in conspiracy theories. The problem is that QAnon is promoting repackaged conspiracy theories about child trafficking and sex abuse rings. Both the trafficking and abuse rings exist as discrete things, but the notion that there is a vast network of elites behind it is not. That false notion and those who propagate it is what's being discredited. PS - Welcome back from your hiatus!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to this groups website then so we can check it out? The flag image does not have the word qAnon on it by the way. And you might agree that the article is poorly written. I don't have time to go back and forth with you, but you might want to read my last few sentences. The term has gone viral for the most shocking and degusting of reasons, and you are defending it use as a smear. Jebbrady (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The origins are from 4Chan (like another amorphous group, bronies). You will be hard-pressed to convince anyone that QAnon is somehow a fabricated term meant only to smear far-right conspiracy-believing Americans.
 * If you want parallels in history of terms like this, try pinko. Only in this case, it's believers in the New Coke version of the satanic panic.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * QAnon spun out of Pizzagate, which was a fabricated scandal around sex trafficking. If you believe the sex trafficking / Satanic cabal claims, you fell for a scam. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Biased to weaponise?
What an utterly biased set of articles.

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

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

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

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


 * ❌ "Conspiracy theory" is very well supported by the sources. - MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What are "the sources"? Do they know who Q is? I haven't seen any source martials on that 72.84.98.133 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Click on the little numbers in the article. MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Request edit to change to Q instead of Qanon
Q is a group posting drops using a dedicated trip code on 8Kun. Anons are those reading the posts. There is no one out there going by the name QAnon. That is a very misleading conspiracy theory that has been debunked 72.84.98.133 (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we say that. I am unsure where the problem lies. Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem Q is not QAnon. QAnon is a conspiracy theory created by folks like you. Q actually makes posts on 8Kun and there is no conspiracy about that. 72.84.98.133 (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Our rule is that the article is titled by the way the subject is commonly named. A plain 'Q' can refer to the British thriller writer, the character from Star Trek: Next Gen, and so forth. 'QAnon' is the term normally used by most ordinary references. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a rehash of an old, old topic. "QAnon" is the popular name for everyone who follows the Q conspiracy theory. It is not an organized group, and we are not claiming it is. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Q is an organized group that's how they have a shared trip code. Anons are not an organized group and don't even know who each other are. Y'all are really drinking the cool aide 72.84.98.133 (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You cannot say everyone who talks about Q refers to it as QAnon cuz I would be an acception. 72.84.98.133 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As the link you've already been given states, we name the article to match the name commonly used by reliable sources. 'Everyone who talks about Q' is not the same group as the reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I literally said the Anons are not an organized group, so please pay attention. QAnon is the popular term for Anons and others who believe in the conspiracy theory, that's it.
 * And we are not saying everyone who talks about this calls it that, we're saying it's the best-known terminology. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is about QAnon, where there is significant coverage, hence a topic. This includes the user known as Q. A better suggestion would be to split this topic into "QAnon", the conspracy theories surrounding Q, and the user known as "Q Clearance Patriot" - as the QAnon topic is the coverage of both subjects. While not an awful idea, in my opinion there isn't much justification for splitting off part of the Origin and spread and claims sections that discusses QCP, but you could also propose such an idea. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's just not enough to justify a separate article. They're all intertwined. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Very much agree. But anyone is welcome to proposal such an idea, even if the proposal would be flawed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't encourage new editors to waste their time with proposals that are doomed to failure. MrOllie (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I'd like to think that new editor or not, there's never a harm in pointless proposals though. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as they listen to why, and do not argue the point. Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Qanons truth
First of all, so much of this is wrong. Qanon evolved from the original Anonymous hacktavist group. And in 2012 anonymous announced project mayhem and project Tyler to start a project to make a way to get information out to WikiLeaks safe and anonymously and dump it all to the world. Quinn Michaels https://x.com/quinnmichaels was a huge part of this, now as a lot of anons being atheist and anarchists, they would hide mischievous messages in the code. Then Quinn started asking for donations which is against anonymous creed and anonymous kicked him from the collective. Much of this you can find on x using #tyler or #game23

Well people started to follow it on twitter and Quinn and the guys started to troll people with it, while in the mean time turning project Tyler into a quantum ai program which is now indra.ai https://indra.ai

And you can go through all Quinn's coding and find it all yourself in his GitHub https://github.com/quinnmichaels Or indras open source he made https://github.com/indraai

This is about all I will go into on this right now. I will see if you will allow me to go on with this. If so I will give you references, dox, and archives to prove the truth on the true Qanon... as Quinn Anon Anoneemooseguy (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We need wp:rs to say this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have much more. Anoneemooseguy (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You can research all I said. And get back to me here if you like. I am more than happy to get Quinn's exposure out to this whole fiasco. Anoneemooseguy (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you make a case, you are asked to back it up with sources, you get wp:consensus to make the change (and please read wp:blp, as right now this might well be removable if you continue to make unsubstantiated allegations). Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * i made the case. The references are there. It's all there as said. What do I need to do more to give you references? Go through the hash tags, go through the GitHub. It's all there. Use hashtag #game23 on x you will see. Quinn is Q. I gave you all the refrwncea and proof. Anoneemooseguy (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Read wp:rs and then explain how these sources pass it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Try starting here in the GitHub https://github.com/indraai/tyler-guide/blob/master/README.md Anoneemooseguy (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever random documents someone uploaded to GitHub are not likely RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Those random githubs have dates. I've also gave you his x which you can go through all of his twitter to all the way back to dates along with Tyler's twitter. Also gave you the website of the actual ai https://indra.ai
 * If you don't want the truth, cool no problem. Let it be as is. IDC thought ild help. 47.218.203.231 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You want to make an edit, it is down to you to do the work, so its simple question.
 * Provide a quote (just one line) that says he is Qanon? Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let us know when your "truth" is verifiable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also read wp:or, it is not enough for you to analyze wp:primary sources, RS have to have come to the same conclusions as you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * do you guys even know what GitHub is? These are actual repositories that are used to run the programs. These are the actual programs. And the dates and all are there, and even deeper in the actual code is all you need to do to find all this out. But again. I did my part. I guess it doesn't need told them if they want to take it down so be it. 47.218.203.231 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We know what GitHub is. Read about what a reliable source on Wikipedia is, please. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for that quote. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm over it. Just trying to help.
 * Take it or leave it. Makes no difference.
 * I'm a old anon.
 * I know and was there when it all went down. I find it crazy that people are so swooned by stuff and directed to things to be said one-way or another when it's literally right there.
 * But Wikipedia has always been a force to print what they deem right or wrong no matter what is literally there or not. Anoneemooseguy (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Still waiting on those references, cause that GitHub link ain't it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * i got that, but Quinn is not going to say hey I'm q. The Q literally stands for Quinn. You can find all the proof in the code as I said, and all of it through him tagging Tyler and in his programs. But no, there is not going to be anywhere he says oh hey guys I'm q Anoneemooseguy (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not going anywhere I think we can close this. Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Erroneous citation inclusion for lead sentence
I accidentally added a duplicate citation to the lead while fixing a typo in a quote in it. I attempted to remove it as it was included by accident and doesn't support the lead sentence, but I was reverted twice by @Orangemike. Bringing here for further discussion. Isi96 (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The citation in question is as follows: It's cited in the Antisemitism section, but was mistakenly added to the lead. Isi96 (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Subcategory
Category:QAnon is no longer used on biographical articles. Do you think we should create a subcategory called "QAnon followers" (or maybe "QAnon supporters" or "QAnon promoters") ? It might be useful for people like Ron Watkins, Jim Watkins, L. Lin Wood, Lionel and such. Psychloppos (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Try an RfC? Doug Weller  talk 10:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)