QAnon was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, 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
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States 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.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesPresidents of the United States
i had in mind in means "Questions Answers none" , but here is stated that it comes from anonimous. then were leads "q" to ?? 178.84.194.202 (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Q is what the individual used as their display name on 4chan and later 8chan. The "Anon" part was added because referring to people as "Anon" or "X-Anon" is tradition on these kinds of boards (as "Anonymous" is the default display name). Q = QAnon, a point this article seems to miss, creating a fake distinction between the name of the pseudonymous individual (or individuals) and the "movement" surrounding them.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article is quite large and goes into unnecessary detail. For example, "Republican individuals and organizations" is much too detailed and the article doesn't need to describe how several Republicans have responded: this information can be removed or spun out. The "Demographics" section should be updated with the latest figures, and older statistics removed or summarised more effectively. There are some uncited statements in the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there are quite a lot of citations to less-than-ideal sources like post-2013 newsweek and Business Insider, the Daily Beast, and some to the decidely non-RS Raw Story and International Business Times. Also Rolling Stone on politics, which it is unreliable for. The Daily Beast/Newsweek/BI can be justified sometimes but in such a politically fraught topic with so much writing about it I don't see why they can't be replaced. Raw Story and IBT should just be removed. We are citing Frontiers as well, which is... eh.... Also some of the sources in the bibliography aren't actually cited. Generally this article overrelies on news sources for the depth of scholarship on the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article is even more outdated since the latest release.
I believe that this whole article needs to be renamed to "the Q-Anon conspiracy" and all of the now disproven claims that it was a conspiracy "theory" removed. Its now a known fact since the latest release of the epstein files, and it sounds really silly to try to defend these child trafficking jerks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmurphy914 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article is outdated
After release of the infamous Epstein file most or even the main plot/definition is clearly not consistent with current information, I request that the article be marked as outdated until edited in accordance with existing public information when such information is deemed sufficient. 14MS95 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any mention of this in your source. Further, the source is a primary source and just claims made by an attorney which cannot be used here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]