Talk:QAnon

Former good articleQAnon 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 27, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
February 23, 2022Good article nomineeListed
December 16, 2025Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

word meanings

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]

RS say it, so do we. Do you have RS for any other claims? Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 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.
This NBC article explains it a bit in the section "The anons" (this writer seems to be among the few journalists to "get it" and not just parrot erroneous information from other articles): How three conspiracy theorists took 'Q' and sparked Qanon OsmanOfRenown (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

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.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Nearly a month has passed with no efforts made to address these issues. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

So what information do we have that is outdated? Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How are the Epstein files remotely relevant to cannibalistic child molesters? Dimadick (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to pedophilia, the declassified files of Jeffrey Epstein revealed cannibalism and ritual murders.
Page 7
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00078198.pdf ~2026-10213-26 (talk) 12:47, 15 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]
Ditto, read wp:v and quote the soruce. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]