Talk:QAnon/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 22 January 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Page title

Purely a suggestion, but QAnon seems to be getting a lot of press lately[1][2] and even has a Wikipedia article (QAnon), so because the focus of this article seems to be shifting to QAnon and away from discussing what Trump meant by "the Storm", would a move be called for? If nothing else, QAnon is a more distinctive title. --Gospatric (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable. Do it. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I would agree, though a re-direct might be advisable. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I prefer a rename, just because QAnon is better title, as Gospatric said. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Done, moved with redirect. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I like the now totally nonsensical disambiguations. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Qwerty

Have 'they' discovered that the first letter on the English keyboard is a Q? Anna Livia (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

You know what gets me

Next election, there's gonna be a republican candidate for some major office who either straight up believes this shit, or leans really heavily on pretending they believe it to win the election. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think there may already be one.[3] Bongolian (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha, Larry the Cable Guy is in this mess. I remember when he used to call into 98 Rock in Baltimore in the mid-1990s. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Fuck

fuck. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Already on it yesterday: QAnon#Train passengers. Bongolian (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Fuck? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Another ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Daily Beast is reporting that it's possibly an act, and she has a huge uphill battle in any case. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for Silver

Looking at the article rating guidelines, this one certainly qualifies. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Bongolian (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thirded. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 13:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

So what would it take for gold, so we can get the thing on the mainpage? — Dysk (contribs) 18:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it could be expanded as far as background and who are the supporters and profiteers. It could be useful to read through the Wikipedia page on QAnon to see what they do better, and and significant things that they have and we do not. Bongolian (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we should have a section that shows the connection between this thing and Pizzagate, and I also think there should be a section detailing some of the most demented claims, such as the idea the Kim Jong Un is a CIA puppet, or that Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired MS-13 to assassinate a DNC staffer. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 19:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I think a section on the psychology of it: when prophesy fails, motivated reasoning, etc, might be nice. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Is the psychology behind it really likely to be different than any other conspiracy theory (bigotry, hatred, credulity, and greed)? Bongolian (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Map dissection

I moved the map dissection here because it made the main article a nightmare to read and edit. Hopefully that works for everyone. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 01:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian I'm pretty sure you're the one who made it, so are you cool with this? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 01:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini No, I'd rather have it back on the page for search engine indexing purposes. We had a discussion about what to do about this previously on the tech support page (RationalWiki:Technical support#Section link fail), and that was the agreement. It was just between @D, @Ikanreed and me because it was regarding a technical issue. If you want to do something else, I'd be happy to hear you out. Bongolian (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I like this piece in the main article, but it could stand alone as a work of wiki art all its own its own article. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You can have the best of both and transclude it if you like. It will appear as part of both. Just stick {{:QAnon map dissection}} where you want the list on this page. — Dysk (contribs) 13:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I like Dysk's solution. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 16:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Bongolian (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Why did @Dysklyver undo the edit? Bongolian (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for gold

@Bongolian You think this is ready for prime time? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 17:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to collapse the big box at Note 2? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I've added a collapse in the footnote. Let me know what you think. The page is certainly worthy of nomination, @DuceMoosolini. I'll have another read through later. Bongolian (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It's better. But anyway, since we already created a separate page and linked to it, is this sort of thing necessary, now that I think about it? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is the solution more-or-less agreed upon to keep it there for the purposes of search engine indexing. Bongolian (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

How's about I put it this way? Does anyone object to QAnon becoming a cover story/gold? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any objections per se. I just want to read through it once more. It's a good idea to have more than one person read through a cover story nominee in its latest incarnation from beginning to end before it becomes a cover story. Bongolian (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I've now done two passes through the page, once for text and once for references. It's ready for Gold as far as I'm concerned. Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

How convenient that I was able to pump the Notch article out into a readable state just in time to see this sucker hit Gold. I can see Moose setting up the templates in the recent changes tab, looking forward to reading this one in its entirety soon! --Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 00:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Shoutout to Bong for taking the bullet and being the guy who cleaned up the references. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 01:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a really good work, and work like this is one of the reasons I stick around here. Well done and thanks to all the contributors. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Back to the map dissection issue

So, the method that was suggested by @D for retaining the map dissection within the page for the purpose of search page indexing ({{:QAnon map dissection}}) does not actually work for the purpose of indexing. This search for example (qanon + 777 + rationalwiki)[4] shows that although our QAnon page comes at the top, it is not because "777" has been indexed from it. The second search result shows that the separate map dissection page did get have "777" indexed. Any objections to my putting the whole thing back in the footnote as collapsed text, @DuceMoosolini, @Ikanreed, @Cosmikdebris, @LeftyGreenMario? Bongolian (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

* deep sigh* I suppose not. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 03:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Just wondering, how important is it to sacrifice loading time for these results? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Slower loading is probably better because as part of the QAnon conspiracy, "5G is a kill grid that will lead to forced vaccinations"[5] 🤯. Bongolian (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Doing a specific search for "777" qanon does result in this page appearing in 4 position, meaning Google knows 777 is in the page but just isn't showing it on the snippet. I don't personally mind but do believe that Google puts less importance to material in collapsed sections (if hidden on page load) so would recommend having it uncollapsed. — Dysk (contribs) 08:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, we'll leave it as is then but without the collapse. Bongolian (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Gematria

QAnon has found the joys of manufacturing any number you want through the conspiracy theorist version of gematria, New gematria. I’m going to put a quick update in my gematria article in the near future. Mostly just acknowledging its daily use on Twitter and their fondness for Trump’s penchant for TWEETING IN ALL CAPS. If you feel it’s worth I can put a one sentence cross reference on this page, but I seek guidance on where it should go, if at all.Antigem (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that would be a great addition! I also think it should go under the "Other assorted insanity" subhead as another bullet. Or else it could get its own section in that area of the article. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 01:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I’ll whip something up and throw it in there in the next few days. Thanks.Antigem (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian Thanks for saving me the time to research and post some additional reference links.Antigem (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Antigem New information added to cover stories needs to have references, otherwise it should not be added. Bongolian (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Glossary?

Is there appetite/need for a separate page to include a glossary of QAnon terms, symbols, and mottoes, similar to the glossaries for alt-right and manosphere (boom, WWG1WGA, breadcrumbs, etc.)? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably would be helpful, yes. --85.76.22.232 (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Cranky

I don't know how to use this page, sorry. There is new information that confirms the Q connection to the NSA and Julian Assange. It is what Corsi figured out early on. The tripcodes not to mention the recent news that fulfills a large amount of Q research. What so many short sighted debunkers don't realize is the Q is 4chan and for chan is everyone. NSA, FBI, cia. The goid guys. Then u have your next level autists who also know what is going on. That's the white hats and it includes some amazing people...until 8chan picked it up when it became myth. Qtards seeing how far they could go in research and monetization. q has been a psyop, a community, a research group Politicians....Trump drew Q on tjr air twice. The Q motto is build it and they will come. And though it spins off into mythos. The 4chan posts w the WikiLeaks podesta+ leaks, the internet and the q map w the compass rose decoded. That's what they taught me as a recipe to wake up and blammo. One can't not wake up. A great deal of the anti q Truther community is paid to slam it by the Democrats. Ha! Yes. Q IS 4Chan. It's Seth Rich, It's exposure of George Soros and the Clinton Foundation. It's Epstein and NXIVM and me too.

As gor pizzagate. Wrong again. Start at the pizza Connection mafia trials them go to Alefentis and Brock and Pizza Pac to re-election Obama. Don't be fake news. https://archive.org/stream/Q-Anon/Q_s_posts_-_CBTS_-_3.9.0_djvu.txt ^{96.30.138.130 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)}

What did I just read --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 07:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

"Be still Taggart. My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives."—Hedley Lamarr Bongolian (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Add party affiliation to the Congress candidates list?

I was a bit surprised to find out that at least one of them (Friedman) is a Democrat. --2001:999:71:4681:AC46:5C43:8B1A:5492 (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably worth noting. It doesn't require any particular viewpoint to run in a party's primary though since political parties in the US are open to all. Bongolian (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

BBC program

Is this a suitable addition? Anna Livia (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You could add it as an external link. Bongolian (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hollywood

A big part of the QAnon social media discussion, which I don't see reflected here, is the role of Hollywood celebrities in their mythology. People like Tom Hanks & Oprah Winfrey (and others) are seen as participating in child trafficking and, unbelievably, cannibalism. The Deep State is not just prominent financiers and politicians but mainstream actors are seen as part of it and innocent comments they make or what is in the background of a Zoom session, are given a QAnon interpretative spins. 2601:1C0:6D00:A560:DCC6:5C07:EC58:AEE3 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. If you have links to Twitter or other citations, it would be nice to see.Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like here is a Reuters fact check with one of the rumors. From the New York Times: "Then followers can shift the conversation to baseless theories about who they believe is doing the trafficking: a cabal of nefarious elites that includes Tom Hanks, Oprah Winfrey and Pope Francis.". (The New York Times also mentions the ridiculous Wayfair furniture -> child sex trafficking nonsense that was a big story about a month back that might be worth adding.) The Telegraph looks like it has an entire article on it, but it's paywalled. (The non-paywalled part though concerns troubles model Chrissy Teigen has had with the QAnon mob.) Wapo (paywalled except if launched incognito) has an entire article debunking a QAnon rumor concerning Oprah. Also a lot of the celebrities targeted are mentioned in a USA Today Fact Check.

So yeah, the problem with the QAnon rumor mill is it's hard to keep up. I don't recall Hollywood celebrities being a big target of the QAnon crowd in the beginning, but it looks like QAnon Twitter mobs are harassing celebrities now with their strange pedophile ring obsessions.

FYI it looks like a QAnon supporter rammed a pickup truck filled with guns through the gates surrounding Rideau Hall (where Justin Trudeau was staying at the time, and an important government office) in July. (A paywalled link from Foreign Policy also mentions it along with a Guardian article) That's definitely worth adding as well IMHO. Soundwave106 (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've made a spinoff article about Austin "BabyQ" Steinbart

Please feel free to chip in and expand the article at Austin Steinbart.

Among things I could use help with:

• nailing down exactly when Austin first explicitly claimed he was Q (I think ~March 2020), ideally with link to whichever video has him doing so
• Austin's alleged early life, including about how his church was apparently a covert intelligence operation and sent teenage Austin to Cuba to conduct espionage
• more details about how Austin's future self around 2050, who is also Commander of the US Space Force, is posting back in time and why
• info about the stalled movie project about how Austin is Q

Long/short a lot of Austin material seems to disappear quickly from the internet, so I'm having trouble finding things like the (hilarious) trailer for his film, so any help in tracking down the details on this insanity would be appreciated! TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, great. Are you using archive.org and archive.is to look for stuff that's disappeared? Archive.org sometimes works for videos but is not very reliable. I'll take a look later. Bongolian (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Bingo

How many ticks on the bingo card with this? Anna Livia (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, I made this one up

...but it is too good to waste: Qu Qlux Olanon.Pbrower2a (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

WHY the 'spiracy exists

I feel like this needs mentioning somewhere.

Every politician creates a narrative about their opponents that they are better than.

Obama was better than some crazy lady who thought she could Russia from her house. Palin had never said anything of the sort, she had said that Alaska was very aware of foreign politics because on some of the islands you can indeed see Russian territory. Obama was also better than some guy who hated 47% of the country that didn't pay tax; Romney basically did say this one so Obama didn't actually need to stretch the truth here.

Bush was better some gold-digger who jumped from rich wife to rich wife. He was also better than some other weirdo who claimed to have invented the internet. Did Gore ever claim to have invented the 'net? No, he merely said that he helped expand internet access in public schools (which is probably a reason numerous millenials struck it rich, so, thank you Gore?).

But, you HAVE to be better than that narrative. Trump's supporters created the narrative that there's a conspiracy of baby-raping/murdering satanists. Is Trump better than a person who murders, rapes and eats babies (hopefully in that order) for sacrifices to Satan? Yes, he is. But if he was much better than a person who craves the delicious flesh of a recently-raped baby, the conspiracy wouldn't have to be so ridiculous. Maybe the conspiracy would just be "Trump is better than a child molester"... except he kind of isn't, given all his creepiness, buying up a beauty pageant for the specific reason of being allowed into the dressing rooms, the creepy comments about his own daughter, all the alleged rape, palling around with Jeffrey Epstein, and so forth. So the conspiracy is about a group of child molesters, who also murder and eat their victims, and also worship Satan. CoryUsar (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Update

This information needs an update. Apparently Q has been identified. nobs^{Hell to the Thief!} 10:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

oh look the fascist has an opinion.RipCityLiberal (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

At risk of hemmoraghing brain cells, I looked into this (also I was curious). The only interesting thing that came out somewhat recently is that QAnon is actually two different people, with the one who moved to 8chan being a different person. This lends more credibility to the suggestion that "Q" is Jim and Ron Watkins using it to grift people, since it seems they adopted the conspiracy from it's early days where it was just one of many 4chan LARPers. Our article should probably in general cover that a bit more. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 10:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A sentence that could be moved

There's a sentence about the German Xavier Naidoo and Attila Hildmann under the France section for some reason. Would move it myself, but the page is locked. --85.76.72.134 (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

March 4 is the real inauguration?!

Right y'all, somebody brought this little article to my attention:

QAnon Thinks Trump Will Become President Again on March 4 Vice 25 January 2021

"Sovereign citizens believe that a law enacted in 1871 secretly turned the U.S. into a corporation and did away with the American government of the founding fathers. The group also believes that President Franklin D. Roosevelt sold U.S. citizens out in 1933 when he ended the gold standard and replaced it by offering citizens as collateral to a group of shadowy foreign investors." And apparently this means that Joe Biden is... pretend President, I guess?

I saw that Reuters Fact check deemed it worthy of a nod and quick debunk, so I'll presume it's well known enough... but does it warrant a little subsection in our article here? I feel a bit hesitant to edit cover story articles. Wouldn't wanna break the flow by just randomly inserting it. Perhaps a subsection titled "Aftermath of Joe Biden inauguration" where we can mention the transformation of QAnon and the shifting of goalposts? Or would this be better in the sovereign citizen article? What do you guys think? - Rairyu75 (Talk) 15:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

More on how it overlaps with New Age and wellness

The article mostly lacks coverage of one important aspect, the "spirituality" which QAnon in part includes, and how a broader "wellness" audience has adopted its beliefs. It's basically a big poster cult for conspirituality in recent times. Here (Vice) are (Washington Post) some (Science-Based Medicine) more articles mentioning such things. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I made a go at a section on this. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Great start, and most of the added info elaborates on the newest developments. But I think the beginning of the section, and the framing of the combining of QAnon and New Age as a more fast and sudden thing beginning with the pandemic, needs changing. The thing is that there's several different things vaguely referred to as New Age and wellness, there's narrower and broader subcultures. For the broadest, the "wellness movement", the current description is accurate, but not for more limited crowds which started out more into conspiracism, especially genuine millennialists. It's basically been spreading like a wave from smaller subcultures to a larger.

The narrowest, most conspiracist, and least left-leaning part of the New Age movement, people into messages like those of David Icke and Alex Jones both (there's older "conspirituality" overlap there) became attracted basically as soon as Q's message gained a loud following, 2018 or so. They spread their message into an increasingly torn broader New Age world, where part of the ill-defined fluffy spiritual subculture embraced the new conspiracism and part of it resisted and clung to more "left-leaning" love and light mentality. Then the pandemic hit, and this longer-term development accelerated and even broader popularizing of the message began. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've partially rewritten it, and think it looks better now. I kept the text at a similar length, though I made the heading longer to capture this distinction between more and less broad movements. I'm not sure how it would look best. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it looks better now as well. There's not a great term to encompass both the wellness movement and New Age (they are "similar" but not the same) so I think the heading is fine. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I did change one thing around, keeping pre-COVID stuff in one paragraph. I wanted to add a link I found showing the similarities between the stores of Goop and Infowars. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Qanon and Jews.

Netanyahu literally is best friends with Trump? How is that not a red flag that everything they believe is one big stupid lie? J3wzus (Talk)

"Med bed" could be added to the glossary

I don't know the exact details, but apparently this idea has been stolen from a science fiction movie or two. Anyway, apparently the Q-heads think that after the Storm they will have access to "magical" (in the Arthur C. Clarke sense of the word) bed thingies that will cure any and all ailments they might have. I think the narrative is that only the shadowy bigwigs currently have access to them, but I could be wrong. Feel free to source the definition from somewhere that seems decent (example search). --85.76.101.72 (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I cannot help but wonder how conspiracy theories end up becoming a literal terrorist threat

I the past, conspiracy theories were simply a thing to be laughed at. Now conspiracy theories have become an ideology used by extremists. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure conspiracy theories ARE historically a bedrock of why someone would be driven to commit such acts of violence. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4

When it appears on a suitable podcast site this will be a suitable link. Anna Livia (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)