Talk:QAnon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the QAnon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

QAnon has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 27, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
February 23, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidents Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Noam Cohen (October 26, 2020). "Wikipedia's Plan to Resist Election Day Misinformation". Wired.

Skip to table of contents

Please read before starting

Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents QAnon in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are:

Also of particular relevance are:

In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Other talk page banners

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020 and 2021.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 17 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Section sizes

Section size for QAnon (54 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	25,111	25,111
Background	18	7,921
Pizzagate	3,711	3,711
Influence of 4chan culture	1,767	1,767
Previous "anons"	2,425	2,425
Origin and spread	10,437	55,213
Mainstream attention	17,664	17,664
International following	24,984	24,984
Pastel QAnon	2,128	2,128
Claims	14	71,084
Q's posts	23,030	23,030
The cabal and "the Storm"	10,654	10,654
Child sex trafficking and satanic sacrifice	16,003	16,003
Other QAnon beliefs	21,383	21,383
Analysis	13	75,801
Identity of Q	1,507	15,472
Multiple people	4,850	4,850
Paul Furber and the Watkins family	9,115	9,115
Slogans and vocabulary	3,338	3,338
Derivative elements	2,695	22,086
Christian themes	4,409	4,409
Antisemitism	14,982	14,982
Appeal	10,031	25,356
Disillusionment	15,325	15,325
Demographics	9,536	9,536
Incidents	1,738	21,789
Attempts to overturn the 2020 U.S. election	19,556	19,556
German coup attempt	495	495
Reactions	14	65,013
Media, advocacy groups, and public figures	10,617	10,617
Official responses	26	7,287
FBI domestic terrorism assessment	2,884	2,884
Congressional resolution	4,377	4,377
Republican politicians and organizations	11,322	11,322
Connected individuals	29	35,773
Donald Trump	8,016	8,016
Mike Pence	3,731	3,731
Michael Flynn	10,670	10,670
Lin Wood	3,709	3,709
Sidney Powell	4,324	4,324
Kelly Townsend	4,518	4,518
Liz Harris	776	776
Online	12	24,703
QDrops app	2,813	2,813
Anti-QAnon subreddits	265	265
Removal of content	14,245	14,245
Migration to alt-tech	3,931	3,931
Return to Twitter/X	3,437	3,437
See also	468	468
Further reading	2,903	2,903
Notes	24	24
References	2,116	3,635
Bibliography	1,519	1,519
External links	2,129	2,129
Total	355,794	355,794

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack#June 28, 2022|sixth public hearing on the January 6 Attack]] The anchor (#June 28, 2022) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Are these reliable sources ?

Regarding the movement's developments since 2022 and Q's brief return, I'm considering whether to use this article and this one. But I'm wondering if these are acceptable sources for such a subject. The Vice.com seems ok, but I've seen so much bad content from this outlet that it has made me cautious. Pastemagazine.com is a magazine about music, as far as I know, so I also wonder. Any thoughts ? Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Reliable sources back up the terminology used in the article. Insulting editors is not going to change things. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It seems like poor English to refer to "QAnon" as a "conspiracy theory". QAnon is an alias for an individual (or individuals) who peddled conspiracy theories. Saying QAnon is a conspiracy theory is like saying Alex Jones is. 46.135.5.245 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RS refer to it as a movement. Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a much more accurate description. "QAnon" is literally just the name of the leader - with the "anon" part being because "Q" was, like all Chan users, anonymous. The way this article differentiates between "Q" as an individual and "QAnon" is odd and misleading.

Calling it a movement makes much more sense because QAnon had followes and therefore you can refer to a "QAnon movement". But saying "QAnon is a conspiracy theory" can only parse as "no individual or entity known as QAnon ever actually existed but there's a conspiracy theory believing that they did" in English grammar, which is not true (rather, someone or some group posting as QAnon DID exist but they propagated several conspiracy theories). It should also be a goal of an English-language encyclopedia to not mislead the reader through frankly poor English. 46.135.5.245 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:or wp:rs call it a conspiracy theory. Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you're forcing your own particular interpretation on the concept and then berating us for not conforming to your views. "QAnon" is used by reliable sources as an umbrella term for the entire movement & it's goals, which are absolutely a conspiracy theory. There is no misleading, especially since people can just read the article to get the full understanding of Q and the movement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can a conspiracy theory be a "goal"? A belief is not a goal. The problem here is one of English grammar. You're literally not producing sensible English sentences. What I'm saying here is not a violation of WP:FORUM - I'm discussing how to improve the article, which currently does not make sense because of users like you loosely and incorrectly using English-language terms they simply do not understand.

A conspiracy theory is a theory (or rather, unfounded hypothesis in this case) and therefore a belief. A belief cannot be a goal - *spreading* a belief can be, or what one does as a consequence of those beliefs, but a belief is itself not a goal. This is an important point to make because saying "QAnon's goal is a conspiracy theory" is not a parseable or meaningful English sentence, and thus defeats the whole point of an informative article. My whole point is that sloppy and inaccurate language is ruining the article.

Moving on: here is an RS (BBC) explaining the same point I tried explaining to you (in vain): QAnon: What's the truth behind a pro-Trump conspiracy theory?

The resulting QAnon conspiracy theory - also known as "The Storm" - is a collection of these interpretations. The "Anon" part of the name comes from the fact that 4chan posters are, by default, anonymous.

Here's another (NBC News) going into more details about this phenomenon: How three conspiracy theorists took 'Q' and sparked Qanon

Before Q, there was a wide variety of “anon” 4chan posters all claiming to have special government access.

In 2016, there was FBIAnon, a self-described “high-level analyst and strategist” offering intel about the 2016 investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Then came HLIAnon, an acronym for High Level Insider, who posted about various dubious conspiracies in riddles, including one that claimed Princess Diana had been killed because she found out about 9/11 “beforehand” and had “tried to stop it.” Then “CIAAnon” and “CIA Intern” took to the boards in early 2017, and last August one called WH Insider Anon offered a supposed preview that something that was “going to go down” regarding the DNC and leaks.

Qanon was just another unremarkable part of the “anon” genre until November 2017

As it explains, QAnon = Q. The -Anon suffix was well-established and previously used for other anonymous individuals claiming to be leaking government info. The fact that QAnon originally referred to the individual, Q, is a relevant fact for the article - making a distinction between the two terms is misleading and factually incorrect. You mistake this for my "interpretation" because you are yourself not acquainted with the facts. 78.136.162.231 (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what RS says, RS say it is a conspiracy theory. And see the section headed Previous "anons". Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions

It should be noted in the lede that all predictions made by the movement have failed to come true. 2605:8D80:404:EE43:4576:982:C3EA:7040 (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except one prediction: they correctly predicted Trump's victory at the 2024 U.S. Election.84.54.70.120 (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why, its not as if they are marketed as some kind of seer. Slatersteven (talk)