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]