Talk:BlueAnon

BlueAnon was first coined in 2016?

According to the QAnon article, QAnon originated in 2017, so if BlueAnon originated in 2016, it wouldn't have been derived from QAnon. Maybe QAnon was derived from BlueAnon? :-) Faolin42 (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You know I actually think you're right, this is from the WSJ article:

"Initially coined by conservative social media users in 2021 to mock news coverage they saw as overblown, such as the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, the term “BlueAnon”..."

CJR doesn't mention a year besides simply referencing the "2016 election" and 2016 isn't referenced in the Wired article at all.

Anne Merlan says on the podcast:

The term BlueAnon, it first started being used in 2016 to refer to a loose collection of conspiracy theories about Donald Trump... I think actually, Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of the first people to use it in public life.

MTG's first tweet about it was in Mar 4, 2021: https://x.com/mtgreenee/status/1367593830455808011

Google Trends doesn't show any activity since March 2021. In March 05, 2021, an Urban Dictionary definition was posted, later rose to the top a day later, and was deleted. I'd wager Candace Owens popularized it in March 4th when she said "QAnon has transformed into Blue Anon" on the The Ingraham Angle (https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20210305_030000_The_Ingraham_Angle/start/776/end/836?q=Qanon+has+transformed+into). I do see some activity dating back to December 2020 so it probably has discovered independently (I mean it rhymes). Johnkinslow (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Weird wording in lead

conspiracy theories that posit Donald Trump is engaged in elaborate schemes to seize or maintain control of the United States Government

The "conspiracy theories that posit Donald Trump is engaged in elaborate schemes" part is fine, but isn't it the goal of everybody who runs for US President "to seize or maintain control of the United States Government"? It sounds a bit silly to me, provoking the reaction "Wow! Trump wants to control the government? That's horrible!" (Well, it is, but it is also legitimate.)

I have no better suggestion for that sentence, but maybe someone has an idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, plus I think the "Etymology" section should probably mostly get merged into the lead. It's a neologism with an obvious origin as a portmanteau—blue and QAnon—and not including that feels like burying the lede. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Inserting "unlawfully" is an improvement, but it seems to include "Trump incited the January 6 insurrection" into BlueAnon, since it is also unlawful seizure of control but actually happened instead of being a conspiracy theory. Since it is not mentioned in the article, I guess it is clear that it is not part of the BlueAnon stuff, and the wording is tolerable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

There's clearly an edit war breaking out here.

I'd prefer to not have my contributions rolled back repeatedly so I'll take it to the talk page - In my view, there needs to be clear definition in this article between what topics are being labeled as "Blueanon" (the fringe conspiracy theories), and what is not - namely, the accepted and well-cited mainstream historical record of Donald Trump's involvement in election interference, his involvement in the January 6th attacks, the Sexual Misconduct allegations, and Prosecution in NYS.

It is my view that providing reference to these articles falls within the scope of MOS:Lead and is necessary to provide context to the reader. Any disagreements? Defenderoflogic (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to this edit , it's proscribed by MOS:LEADNO as you've already been told: "Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Chetsford (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that edit.

From the MOS link you've provided --

> In some cases the definition of the article topic in the opening paragraph may be insufficient to fully constrain the scope of the article. In particular, it may be necessary to identify material that is not within scope. For instance, the article on fever notes that an elevated core body temperature due to hyperthermia is not within scope. These explanations may best be done at the end of the lead section to avoid cluttering and confusing the first paragraph. This information and other meta material in the lead is not expected to appear in the body of the article.

Is that example not specifically parallel to this? It would seem a debate over whether providing basic historical context, which is not significantly elaborated in the article, belonging in the lead would seem to be settled, in favor, across both MOS and other popular articles.

In order to provide context for what BlueAnon is, as a conspiracy theory, as your reflections below eloquently describe - it is important to provide context to separate the "improbable or discredited theory" from the matters-of-fact historical record which are preserved and supported, quite well in those articles.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding on your part of the implication of "significant information", in this context?

These are not new claims being made, by referencing articles which well supported and cited - referencing accepted, academic, historical record. Defenderoflogic (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to say what is the case, not what is not the case. Unless reliable sources say explicitly that it is not the case. What you want to add is true but unsourced. See WP:RS and WP:BRIE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Given the main objection's concession to the point of reader confusion regarding " schemes to unlawfully seize or maintain control of the United States Government" in this lead, I am once again raising for discussion the validity of a short passage which describes what Blueanon isn't.

Reliable sources of historical record are cited throughout all of the proposed linked articles, which are presented as records of events, which are a matter of both record and repute.

Understanding the shared reality that "any probable or non-discredited theory is -- by definition -- not a conspiracy theory" I sincerely fail to see how a new claim which is requiring an independent source is being made, here, by stating that disparate matters of generally accepted historical record - despite notable overlap in both characters and context, aren't labeled as this, or any, conspiracy theory.

BRIE, sure - but wouldn't working towards a passage to this effect, properly cited if necessary, be the needed context this article would need to resolve ambiguity from a reader's perspective? Defenderoflogic (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

properly cited if necessary Proper citations are necessary. Without them, such a paragraph does not belong in the article. With them, yes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

"Is that example not specifically parallel to this?" No. Chetsford (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"but it seems to include "Trump incited the January 6 insurrection" into BlueAnon, since it is also unlawful" While a conspiracy theory, literally, is a theory about a conspiracy, it's universally used in modern tense to describe an improbable or discredited theory of a conspiracy (see: , ). Indeed, our own article on conspiracy theory opens by describing it as "an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy when other explanations are more probable". Ergo, any probable or non-discredited theory is -- by definition -- not a conspiracy theory. That said, if we really think readers are likely to be confused about this, the simplest solution would probably be to just drop the word "falsely" or "incorrectly" into the lead (i.e. "which falsely posit" or "which incorrectly posit"). Chetsford (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

What I am saying is that Trump actually tried to unlawfully seize or maintain control of the United States Government, so, using that phrase to define BlueAnon is not optimal. Yes, the first part of the same sentence, containing the conspiracy theories, improves that by excluding Jan 6, because it is not a conspiracy theory.

"incorrectly posit Donald Trump is engaged in elaborate schemes to unlawfully seize or maintain control of the United States Government" - the "incorrectly" would only be true because of the "elaborate schemes" part. Not an improvement. Let's leave it as it is, maybe it will get better later. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Taken in a vacuum I'd agree unlawfully seize or maintain control of the United States Government in the lead by itself is not optimal. However, because this is preceded by the term "conspiracy theories" and not "theories" it automatically excludes anything that is factual and includes only those things that are non-factual. That said, in cogitating on your underlying observation, you have me convinced that the current presentation -- regardless of its technical correctness -- may cause confusion to the average reader and there may be a better way we can present this. Chetsford (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not a thing

BlueAnon was a term coined by conservatives to muddy the waters around QAnon by "bothsides"-in the issue. It is telling that most people using the term are themselves QAnon believers. This is nothing more than a blatant attempt at a counternarrative.

Pretty much all examples of the so called "left wing conspiracy theories about Donald Trump" fit into three categories: irrelevant gossip, outdated speculation that has been abandoned in light of new information, or confirmed facts.

@Chetsford: this entire article is your very recent creation. If you have any good arguments as to why this article shouldn't be reverted to a redirect to QAnon, I would advise you to present them soon. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Or what? Chetsford (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Or I will propose reverting the article to a redirect to QAnon, as it originally existed. After consulting with regular editors who specialize in current year American politics, obviously, though I have little reason to doubt they will agree with me. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Noted. Chetsford (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

blue anon is a cult 2600:100F:A110:8774:A1F7:B75B:DF3B:B97A (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This article makes true facts seem like conspiracy theories.

Evidence one: This article attempts to discredit actual facts. One major example is one of the first sentences: "conspiracy theories which posit Donald Trump's engagement in elaborate schemes to unlawfully seize or maintain control of the United States Government." These so called "conspiracy theories" have been proven to be true. Although the statement is technically correct due to the term "conspiracy theory" meaning any theory (true or false) about a conspiracy, it uses the equivocation fallacy (or a similar fallacy-I need to brush up on my fallacies) to make it seem as though it was an untrue conspiracy theory. Donald Trump did engage in schemes to unlawfully seize or maintain control of the United States Government. It's been proven numerous times, most notably Jan 6.

Evidence 2: This groups genuine facts, outdated theories that have been abandoned, and useless gossip into the same category, as @Chetsford said. One example is that "A body double of Melania Trump was used during campaign appearances in the 2024 U.S. presidential election," which is a claim that has been stated by a few nutty celebrity tabloids and their followers. The large majority of people who believe the other supposed "conspiracies" of BlueAnon know that this claim is nuts. The "Donald Trump staged his own shooting" was proposed early on and then abandoned in light of new evidence.

Overall, this article seems like an attempt to discredit actual facts in by placing them with utter nonsense. Of course, I do not believe that it was done in bad faith, because it's easy to think that all of the "other side" thinks the same thing. The NPAD (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

There are certain claims which are demonstrably false, such as the "She won" claims now making the rounds. . I do think there are dangers in conflating conspiracies for which there is actual evidence (e.g., certain kinds of coordination between the Trump Administration and the January 6th rioters) and conspiracies which are based on the standard tropes and fantasies of groups such as those from Lyndon LaRouche's political cult. That these things are called "BlueAnon" is basically in the realm of trope right now. We should not go beyond where the sources are taking us, but I don't think it is the case that the article as a whole is running in that direction. We need good sources and then I think we'll be better of. jps (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. This article is garbage and reads like a transparent POV piece. It needs major cleaning up. It is primarily a slogan used by right-wing social media trolls to attack the Democratic Party and news coverage related to QAnon, authoritarian actions by Donald Trump and attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. It has been criticized as a misleading comparison that equates isolated conspiratorial claims on the left with the organized extremist movement on the right. It is certainly not a recognized concept, and is typically used in quotation marks and in a critical context, see for example: The main similarity of QAnon and ‘BlueAnon’ is that they rhyme. --Tataral (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

In fact, I agree with the above suggestion to restore the long-standing redirect to QAnon. This obscure "both sides" whataboutist term at the most merits a brief mention there. --Tataral (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. Chetsford (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I said that, not Chestford. But I'm glad I'm not alone in noticing the blatantly obvious, and the current form of the article clearly vindicates our observations. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Definition of BlueAnon

BlueAnon (a portmanteau of blue and QAnon) is a slogan used by right-wing social media users to mock the Democratic Party, criticism of Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, related actions widely seen as threatening democracy in the United States, and news coverage related to QAnon.

This is currently the first sentence (and more broadly, the first three paragraphs).

In 2016, it seems the term was used by conservatives (Candace Owens, Majorie Greene) deflect criticism on QAnon in the wake of January 6 by pointing to other beliefs such as Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections or sexual assault allegations by Christine Blasey Ford that they described as hoaxes.

The thing is, as the Washington Post writes: "Initially coined by conservative social media users in 2021 to mock news coverage they saw as overblown, such as the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, the term “BlueAnon” has since been used by people across the political spectrum to describe particularly outlandish conspiracies and denialism from Biden supporters." This is more clear in 2024 when it began to be used to describe beliefs that the attempted assassination of Trump was staged or a false flag.

Another way of saying it is that in 2021, it was used as a mocking term to deflect more credible criticism while later it began to be used by publications to describe actual conspiracy theories (as in much less credible with little to no evidence that spread via social media). Hence, I think the article should be rewritten to reflect that. John Kinslow (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

It's literally a term concocted by Marjorie Taylor Greene and Candace Owens, who are far-right conspiracy theorists, not "conservative," and used in far-right trolling. The Washington Post writes (2024): "The main similarity of QAnon and ‘BlueAnon’ is that they rhyme" (notice the quotation mark) --Tataral (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tataral:

It's literally a term concocted by Marjorie Taylor Greene and Candace Owens, who are far-right conspiracy theorists, not "conservative," and used in far-right trolling.

This I wholeheartedly agree with, though I do think far-right conspiracy theorists are by extension conservative. But it's not what it used to mean but what reliable sources says it means now.

The Washington Post article you cite mentions that "[t]here are a few reasons that false or unsupported claims about the assassination attempt have found traction on the left" before providing a few reasons why those on the left have feelings of distrust. Still, it acknowledges that these claims are "false or unsupported", just argues that it is limited to an isolated incident rather than more widespread like QAnon.

For reference, here's what the phenomenon has been used to describe:

The attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania was staged - Washington Post, The Hill, The Daily Beast, Columbia Journalism Review, The Telegraph, The Conversation, The New Statesman, The Daily Beast, France24

Election denialism - Wired

Elon Musk used Starlink to rig the election - Rolling Stone, Wired, , The Daily Beast

JD Vance is a pedophile - Daily Dot

From what I can see, there's significantly more reliable sources describing the phenomenon as it was in 2024 (conspiracy theories with no basis in fact or evidence popularly spread via social media) compared to its first definition in 2021 (right-wing trolling to deflect from QAnon).

If you ask what I think is best, I would write a definition along the lines:

BlueAnon (a portmanteau of blue and QAnon) is a term that was initially coined by right-wing social media users to mock the Democratic Party that later is used to refer to a loose collection of left-wing conspiracy theories spread on social media. John Kinslow (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)