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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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 United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents 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.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents articles
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:
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.
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. Ifconsensus 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 Report17 times. The weeks in which this happened:
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
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]
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]
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]
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:Bite11:57, 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.
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.
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]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
