Talk:QAnon

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)

QAnon has nothing going to do with Epstein and any attempts to link it would require good sources otherwise it’s a paranoid, and disgusting attempt to use real tragedy to push conspiracy theories Tim985 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

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the main plot/definition is clearly not consistent with current information, I request that the article be marked as outdated until edited in accordance with existing public information when such information is deemed sufficient. 14MS95 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

So what information do we have that is outdated? Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

How are the Epstein files remotely relevant to cannibalistic child molesters? Dimadick (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ditto, read wp:v and quote the soruce. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Although this article doesn’t ignore Epstein, it doesn’t react to the large amounts of recent revelation of him and his contacts; it doesn’t hint at any suggestion that Epstein and his associates WERE this cabal, or that they weren’t a cabal, but were the source of the theory. The word “fabricated” in the second sentence seems to mean “invented” or “completely made up”, whereas that now seems possibly not to be the case. Nick Barnett (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Err, this is not just about Epstein, nor was QAnon. So what has now been revealed that contradicts anything we say? Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

My impression from multiple news outlets is that "fabricated" should be replaced: Epstein DID have a cabal — or if not a cabal, at least a suspicious group of suspicious contacts — who partook of pretty much the sorts of things QAnon accused its cabal of, so possibly it's all an extraordinary coincidence, and QAnon WAS fabricated, or they were the same cabal, and QAnon was not fabricated, even though it missed some bits of the story and got other bits wrong.

I suspect it was not fabricated, but I can't be sure. The article, on the other hand, is quite categorical saying that QAnon was fabricated, and I think that isn't justified. Nick Barnett (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

You say that your impression from multiple news outlets is that QAnon's claims weren't fabricated. Which reliable sources and which articles specifically? If you can identify these reliable sources then we can edit the article to include them. Shimbo (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Really, I am challenging wikipedia's categorical statement that the claims are fabricated, Shimbo. I can't say either way, but wikipedia is doing so; it is saying that. Do the sources it cites in this article substantiate that they're "fabricated"? Fabricated, then, as opposed to being elicited by ripples from the Epstein circles?

If not, why not just remove the word?

I oppose far-right motivators who motivate voters to vote for far-right candidates and their policies, but I sympathise with those voters who find that having voted for non-far-right candidates, pledges are not fulfilled and lives feel miserable. I suspect QAnon is a mixture of malign motivation and factual ripples, and far from helping to open voters' eyes to QAnon being purely malign when it isn't, acknowledging that it might be this mixture would be more eye-opening, and factually more accurate. Nick Barnett (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Then provide an RS that says that contradicts anything we say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Two things.

1) Read the section QAnon#Claims. That gives extensive, and fully sourced, details of all the things that Q claimed, predicted, or otherwise hinted at, none of which actually happened. In other words Q was making stuff up. Another word for 'making stuff up' is fabrication.

2) As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it doesn't matter what you, I or anyone else personally believe about Q, Trump, Epstein, or anything else, and it doesn't matter where our political sympathies lie either. All that matters is what reliable sources say. You said that multiple news outlets say that QAnon's claims weren't fabricated. So just tell us which ones and we're good to go. Shimbo (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Do the Epstein files demonstrate existence of a 'cabal' that engaged in sex crimes? There is conclusive evidence that Epstein trafficked adolescent girls for his own abuse in the early 2000s. But it remains an allegation that he 'lent out' girls to a ring of other men. The FBI were unable to corroborate that . This allegation traces back to one or two accusers, whereas the remaining victims have said it was just Epstein.

I know people don't want to accept that, so they have to resort to conspiracy theories of a mass coverup involving thousands of government employees. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)