Talk:QAnon

GA Reassessment

QAnon

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) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Nearly a month has passed with no efforts made to address these issues. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

Past tense

Should the article summary now be in the past tense given that Qanon is not really a live phenomena any more? Shimbo (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The case for "claim" vs "fabrication"

I believe that "claim" is a more appropriate term than "fabrication" for its usage in the introduction, given that the information espoused by Q was, by nature, difficult or impossible to prove. However, multiple other editors disagree and seem set on keeping the current wording without any discussion of the merits of change, let alone comment, so I'll let this be an epitaph. Isakmonkey67 (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

You've offered no basis in reliable sources to substantiate your edits, and until now have not attempted to make an argument here, so nobody is going to seriously consider your change. You're being reverted because your edits appear to be granting some level of credibility to what is universally described in reliable sources as lunatic nonsense. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Gosh, that sounds like Dogma. I guess that you must be right, in your mind. Isakmonkey67 (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about what I believe? Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not editors' beliefs. You've offered nothing but a personal preference for a watered-down description of something that is described as nonsense. Read the references. Relible sources unanimously describe QAnon as a hoax, fabrication, scam, or fantasy. We don't give credibility to things that have no credibility. This is a reality-based project. Acroterion (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, you're doing the right thing here in discussing the potential change, so that's good.

The difference between "claims" and "fabrications" is a quite dramatic one, so it is worth exploring why the word was chosen in the lead.

So, first, note that the article's lead section has to summarise the main article.

Now, does the main article section dealing with Q's posts give any level of credibility to them? Does it show that posts Q made turned out to be correct, or does it include a list of posts that were demonstrably incorrect along with a note that many were allusive, cryptic, and impossible to verify?

If Q's posts shows that they turned out to be true, then "claims" or even "revelations" would be a fair summary to use in the lead, but if it shows that they were false, then we need to summarise that as some word like "fabrications" or "fantasies", don't we? Shimbo (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Or lies, or falsehoods. The fact that htey are not true means that they are these things, and not just "claims". Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2026

change the line in the claims section where it says which people are believed to be in the evil cabal, it says "religious leaders like Pope francis and Dalai Lama, Antony Fauci(makes it seem like fauci is a religious leader, even tho he isnt, i think it should be written like "pope francis and dalai lame, Scientists like Anthony Fauci) Dima goloborodko (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2026 (UTC)