Talk:4chan/Archive 12

Wiping the talk page of a wikipedia article is un-Wikipedialike
Yes, it is. There were many earnest comments regarding proposed content on this locked topic. It appears that whoever has taken it upon themselves to manage this page has lost sight of that, possibly because of miles of inane chatter, but no single person can be the judge of the relevancy of a whole discussion page! This is simply unacceptable by any standard.
 * Isn't it right here? Talk:4chan/Archive_11--mboverload @ 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see above comment; there is content in the article, there really isn't much left to say for now. —Giggy 00:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

you forgot the attack on ashley tisdale
users of 4chan attacked ashley tisdales website by spamming the forums with gore after she redid the rickroll song —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.24.242 (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is any different from daily occurrences on 4chan. We can't include everything that happens in the article. Personally, I think it's ridiculous to include the Google Trends fact.--Russoc4 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Google Hot Trends subversion?
I think this shouldnt even be mentioned in the article, it wasnt so important and things like that happen almost every day in 4chan. Jim88Argentina (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is that this was reported in verifiable reliable sources. Of course, we don't need to report everything that happens, so if you have a reason why you think we shouldn't report this, I'm happy to hear it. —Giggy 05:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination?
Having done a fair bit of work cleaning this up, I'm thinking of nominating it for GA (and then move on to FA at some stage). Anyone have any comments on this? —Giggy 08:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I nominated it. —Giggy 10:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Heads up!
There is a piece that's going to be published in the August 3rd edition of New York Times Magazine  dealing with trolls, /b/, and Mitchell Henderson. Just putting it out there. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 01:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that article in the NY Times Magazine has already been integrated into this article, very well, I might add, by Giggy. Just check the history of the article. -- Ghost Stalker  (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 03:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. Slowpoke {talk • contribs} 03:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, if there's any information I didn't cover you're welcome to throw it in and we can discuss it. (And if you find any more sources, please suggest them!) —Giggy 06:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Undoing of my edit
I removed the text "The site's "/b/" board is particularly notorious" as "notorious" is not an objective fact, but someone's opinion. Who has the right to state something is "notorious"? It wasn't sourced or anything, but it was re-added without explanation by Giggy. What gives? how do you turn this on 00:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement is sourced in the /b/ section; the collective opinion of many reliable sources that have commented on it is that it's notorious. I can add some citations to the lead if you like, though I'd rather not (per WP:LEAD they're not really needed there). —Giggy 01:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfair policy toward gay men
4chan has several boards devoted to heterosexual pornography, including "Hardcore", "Sexy Beautiful Women", and "Yuri". Only one board is devoted to gay male images and they must be softcore yaoi illustrations, which is a niche that mainly appeals to heterosexual women. Posting images of male pornography involving real men results in banning from the "random" board. The promise of "random" banning is a smokescreen. I have noticed that the article has been scrubbed of the "fags" references, which is nice to see, but the site's philosophy is still clearly one that does not allow full participation by gay and bisexual men. I would like to see 4chan publicly state that it has this anti-gay policy, instead of hiding behind "random" banning.

If anyone is surprised by what I've written, note that the "hardcore" board, which should encompass both heterosexual and homosexual pornography given its general name, demands only heterosexual content according to 4chan's FAQ which says "Straight (male/female) pornography only." 4chan also promises that anyone who complains about their policies publicly will by banned.
 * Well duh. I would have figured they had a bias against gay men because they call everyone they don't like a faggot. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the article should make note of this. Permanently banning gay men without providing a reason and a clearly expressed anti-gay policy is abusive behavior. "You have been permanently banned from all boards for the following reason: No reason available"
 * The article will make a note of it as soon as a reliable source makes a note of it. To be fair, 4chan is homophobic, racist, sexist and offensive in the extreme.  While the article doesn't exactly detail how awful /b/ appears to the uninitiated, it makes a fist of it. Protonk (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it help if I post the PDF I saved of the banning notice on a website, the one that says I'm permanently banned with no reason given? Would that constitute "reliable"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. A reliable source is usually one published by a third party that engages in some form of editorial control, selection and (although not always) fact checking.  If a magazine like wired or a journal like the Journal of Homosexuality covered the subject, it would count. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)It wouldnt. WP:RS say that sources have to be third party and published. Also, homophobia goes with the territory when people can say things with no fear of those things being traced back to them due to anonymity. What did you really expect from a group whose identifying term among groups is +fag, for exam  ple: Eurofag, Ausfag, Britfag, etc. Besides, who really cares? If you dont like 4chan, you dont have to go there. -- Ghost  Stalker  (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 03:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How convenient for 4chan. Nonetheless, the 4chan FAQ clearly shows that it doesn't allow anything but heterosexual pornography in its "hardcore" section, which is anti-gay bias that can be noted right now. The worst problem, though, is the supposedly random permanent banning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an odd remark. Protonk (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Note, the previous reply was in response to "How convenient for 4chan." by itself. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We should care because it's relevant to the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about why we should care. I was remarking on how it seemed odd to describe the wikipedia reliable source guidance as "convenient" for 4chan. Protonk (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I was not responding to your post directly, but one above which I tried to respond to by inserting a comment after it but that was reverted so I posted below yours. A comment above asks "who cares". It's relevant to the article, the comments you and the other person have made about the site's use of slurs like fags and faggot. It's relevant to the article that there is a policy against homosexual porn in a general "Hardcore" pornography sub-forum. These notes should be in the article. If you respond "well duh", that means something is obvious enough that it should be included, right?
 * Ok. let's work out some sort of draft sentence to be included.  the Encyclopedia Dramatica article cites its about page (in a proper reading of WP:SPS).  so tell me how you think a sentence describing this would go and where it should go in the article.  If we can agree on something neutral, accurate and verifiable, I think we can put it in. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4chan has several forums devoted to heterosexual pornography, and the only forum in which limited homoerotic pornography is allowed is the Yaoi forum. Yaoi is known as a form of erotica that appeals primarily to heterosexual women in that it places a very strong emphasis on romance and requires a masculine and feminine role dichotomy. 4chan's Yaoi forum restricts images to illustrations. The 4chan "Hardcore" forum requires that only heterosexual pornography be contributed, despite its general name that encompasses heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual pornography.

4chan is also notable for its common use of homophobic labels such as fag and faggot. Fag is used as a suffix for a variety of group titles.
 * Regarding your banning without a reason, on the Rules page of 4chan, it states that the rules of /b are ZOMG NONE!!!1, then it notes that "ZOMG NONE!!!1" applies to moderators as well. You dont need a reason to be banned on /b/, if a mod wants to ban you, he can and will. Also, regarding the supposed homophobia of 4chan, does it really matter to the article at all? Or are you just butthurt that you got banned? -- Ghost Stalker  (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have explained how this is relevant to the article and I have discussed the nature of "random" banning and how it relates to 4chan's apparently obvious homophobia.
 * Your draft "sentence" violates WP:UNDUE. The size of the passage you want to add roughly equals the size of the section regarding moot's identity. As I really dont believe that a mention of 4chan's homophobia is equivalent in importance to moot's identity, I think you should trim that passage considerably. Your second sentence requires an RS. Heck, the way your first passage is worded, it also needs an RS... Again, I ask, why do you really want to insert this passage so much? Butthurt much? -- Ghost Stalker  (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 04:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and your suggestion that /hc/'s rules prohibiting homosexual pornography is evidence of an anti-gay bias violates WP:SYN. An RS has not stated this as such, and you can't go from one point to the other without inserting your own bias. -- Ghost Stalker  (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 04:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Calm down, he's participating in a good faith discussion on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) as for the UNDUE weight, I agree. A one liner would probably be more appropriate given the likely source (the 'about page') and the nature of the statement. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the expression "Butthurt much?" Wikipedia terminology I'm unfamiliar with, or is it something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's just my /b/tard nature poking through. It means exactly what you think it means. I'm still not convinced that the article needs such a mention. -- Ghost Stalker  (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 04:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. Look, you got banned. Move on. Wikipedia is not your army. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 04:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dangit, now I wish I had come up with that one, PCH... But for future reference, the line is "not your personal army". Still, it was a good one. -- Ghost Stalker  (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that, but I just thought it didn't seem proper to pile on another meme. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 04:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Homophobic insults are not welcome here. As for accusations of bias, there is an obvious bias in demanding that only heterosexual pornography exist in a forum with the general name "Hardcore". That is not me inserting bias. That is due to the incorrect choice of terminology by 4chan. As for me having been banned, the "move on" comments are neither here nor there. They're not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what I'm hearing here is that somebody got bullied and now wants to try to make it some kind of lightning rod "issue". Sorry. But the woeful, awful, slings-and-arrows injustices of a random pornographic website are not notable except to those they inconvenience- er, I mean, deeply wound and wrong. - Vianello (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The personal attack here needs to stop. I have made a legitimate note about 4chan, one that has been called obvious by three people here alone. Now, I am being the target of completely inappropriate comments like "butthurt much". This is not what I expect from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm the first to agree with you that it isn't too cool for you to be called 'butthurt', but that isn't "wikipedia" doing that to you. That is GhostStalker. It is his choice of wording (one not unique to /b/, it is very common in the military as well), not anyone else's. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll apologize for using that term and step back for a bit. But you are still making a pretty big mountain out of a molehill... -- Ghost Stalker  (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 04:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the recent comments trying to dismiss what I've written with personal attack are uncalled for. Posts like "who cares" and "move on" are not helpful. They're just distracting from the legitimate process we were undertaking which is the revision of an addition for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not doing anything wrong. 4chan's homophobia is apparently obvious enough to elicit reactions like "well duh" from multiple people and yet there is nothing about it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * admonitions to move on aren't personal attacks. Statements like "who cares" aren't personal attacks.  The fact remains that what goes in this article (which is on a cusp of a GA nomination) will come from reliable sources, not supposition on the part of editors. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Is it noted in a newspaper? Is it on the news? Is it in a magazine? If you answered no to these three questions, then our answer to you is no, we can't put it in. Not to mention this whole claim is original research. And as for the move on comment, I'm just taking this at face value. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 04:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "cough troll cough", "butthurt much", "you got bullied", "we're not your army", "move on", "mountain out of a molehill" and the like - all that is ad hominem. It is personal attack designed to denigrate what I have to say by trying to make me out to be a person who is out of control. Instead of focusing on the actual issue, which is 4chan's homophobia, people are increasingly turning on me as if that makes the issues with 4chan irrelevant. There is no supposition on the issue with the Hardcore forum, for instance. That's spelled out in the FAQ. Is there supposition in the statement that groups are tagged with "fag" as a suffix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong, only the first two are personal attacks. The last four are maybe uncivil. Protonk (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of arguing about this, how about revising my suggested addition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

...ok. Let's start again. This time show me the source that you are going to use for your claim. What part of the rules/faq are you going to cite and what is the url? Protonk (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not about to jump into this full-bore, but I will point out that /b/ has, over the course of a day, SEVERAL threads full of homosexual pornography. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

/hc/ is the hard alternative to /s/. It says so right in the rules you want to quote, OP. If you're so upset by this, just email moot. If he gets enough emails saying "We want a REAL gay board!" he's more likely to do so. And besides, think about it. You complain about the anti-gay bias of 4chan, down to people using the word fag as a suffix to denote groups of people. Do you really think a gay board would be at all well received? I wish there was a gay board, even though I myself am not gay. It's only fair, after all, and if I don't want to look at gay porn, I don't look at it. My suggestion is not to bitch on Wikipedia about it, because we can do absolutely nothing about it. Go to moot with your grievances. Howa0082 (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

4chan is full of all kinds of posts specifically crafted to incite drama, posted by users who have more of an intent to troll than an intent to express their hatred of any certain minority. While I HAVE seen hateful treatment by users of male homosexuals in particular (I haven't looked recently, but I doubt the hardcore board bans for lesbians, and never, in all my years, have I ever seen such a thread deleted or its OP banned for a lesbian thread), they certainly aren't as big a focus of /b/tard hate as, say, furries or Scientologists. While terms such as newfag, oldfag, Ausfag, and Britfag are prevalent still, most of these are at worst bastardized pejoratives which have lost their meaning, much like the word motherfucker is a stock insult rather than an implication that someone actually fucks their own mother, and the rest are often just friendly, if a bit insulting to the uninitiated, general terms for whatever specific group they are mentioning. At least in my time browsing 4chan, I've treated this behavior as relatively harmless trolling at worst, and I don't really think a sizeable majority of /b/tards have an intense hate and dislike for gays, male or female. And in the context of the hardcore board, if you want my guess, I'd bet that homosexual pictures are banned simply because that's not the kind of porn that the people demanded, and that instead of getting a relatively healthy board, moot would instead get a board that serves only to generate mounds of complaints from people bitching about how the content is not to their liking. (Steampowered (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)).

To quote the talk page guidelines: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." If there aren't reliable sources that discuss these claims of homophobia etc etc, Wikipedia doesn't care. John Nevard (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rickroll origin correction
The term "duck" was not wordfiltered from "egg", it was wordfiltered from "loli". I remember this very clearly, I even have some of the dumb photoshops that were made from that era. I even checked to make sure, and I couldn't find anything pre-2008 that shows that "egg" wordfiltered to "duck" in 2005. A popular meme from that time was "is this loli?", which turned into "is this duck?" (google for '"is this duck?' 4chan' and you'll spot plenty of references pre-2008). The duckroll was the result of people claiming there was a "hot duck thread", which was the duckroll. Duck replaced the former "loli" wordfilter, which was "Thomas Jefferson". I have no idea where "egg" came from, but I'd guess it's to disassociate themselves from lolicon, keeping the advertisers happy, or that they don't want to acknowledge that one of the most popular internet memes originated from a lolicon joke. Even a simple google for "4chan wordfilters" will bring up old discussion threads detailing the wordfilters of the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.169.146 (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations/Sources
There are quite a few news articles about 4chan, but certain cultural contributions such as lolcats and so forth could use further research to find sources. I put the template indicating that the article requires additional references. Thanks for understanding, I hope there is a way to confirm the start of trends here, maybe with the archive.org Wayback Machine or a similar site. natezomby (talk)
 * I'm confused. What, exactly, isn't sourced? —Giggy 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "certain cultural contributions" (e.g. lolcats) being cited as originating on 4chan are not sourced, how do we know where memes actually originated without doing original research? Internet memes make the rounds on the usual internet forums (like SomethingAwful, Fark, multiple different chans, IRC chat rooms) so fast that I would think saying they originated somewhere would require a citation. I understand most wiki editors on this page are probably 4channers (myself being one by coincidence) but we are Wikipedians first. natezomby (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks shopped. I know this because the shadows are all wrong and from having seen a few shops in my day. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

moot's name
It should probably be mentioned that moot's real "Real" name is apparently Robert Bopkins. There's an image of him at some convention and that's the name on his nametag. Also, the Christopher Poole pseudonym is probably a play on the initials for Child pornography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.194.74 (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Robert Bopkins was a prank for April Fool's Day years ago, in which he posted images from a man who all we know as mootxico.--Execoot (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A further note on this topic: I understand if moot chooses not to capitalize moot into Moot, but when it is at the beginning of a sentence, isn't it just proper grammar to capitalize it? Furthermore, half the titles in this article aren't capitalized either. Is this intentional or negligence? Tyciol (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that moot should never be capitalised. I've fixed up some of the headers though, you were correct on that count. Giggy (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Down again
DNS problems this time, according to the status page. 4chan has had a lot of technical problems the past month.--Ryudo (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Melbourne link I think is incorrect and should be Melbourne Florida, not Melbourne Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.162.71 (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's correct, read the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.75.8 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

lolcats
They didn't start on 4chan, they've been around basically since the beginning of the internet. --76.25.197.215 (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Check references.Gravelz (talk)
 * The whole "lolcat" phenomom as we know it did start as "Caturday" on 4chan. Though I did read on Shii's site that it may go back further than that and may have had it's start in Japan. This would probably be very likely as the idea of 4chan came from 2chan anyway. If there is any references that someone can find... Zylo-86 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fun Fact: "Caturday" was invented to short-circuit the "Furry Friday" crapfloods. As it was already Saturday to the east of GMT by the time that Friday reached the USA, it became a very effective way to push the furry material off the board with the far more popular "cat macros". 203.14.156.193 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some argue that it was invented over 9000 years ago.--98.199.206.122 (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You just failed so hard there isn't a face palm powerful enough. 4chan did not make lolcats, it was bastardized to lolcats. Cats were posted on the chans, notably on caturday. Then the fags on icanhazcheeseburger fucked it up. -Unsigned


 * Deginatley. The same thing happened to Rick Rolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.39.34 (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is, in fact, exactly what happens when rules 1 & 2 are broken. For 4chan, all publicity is BAD publicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.75.120 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Walmart raid
Should anything be said about this? Gravelz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing meme
The mudkipz explanation is killing me, we can at least make it right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonaturservice (talk • contribs) 06:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Oh, thank you man. Especially when they cited Times Online and said that EncyclopediaDramatica INVENTS 1337speak...who wrote that on, ED DOCUMENTS it, not INVENTS it. I put in some comments about it.. -Warsie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.9.155 (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording
"It has also received media attention for its attacks against other websites and Internet users" The site is merely an imageboard. If we start saying that "4chan" attacks websites then could we not also say that it distrubtes child pornography or distributes far-right (and far-left) propaganda? Oursroute (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has received media attention for the Benoit incident. If we say it propagates such than can we not also say that it blocks paedophiles and distributes far left (and far-right) propaganda, even unintentionally?  -Jéské  (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, Facebook (unintentionally) distributes propaganda and even encourages anorexia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oursroute (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And MySpace distributes propaganda and even encourages pseudo-Asperger's. The fact of the matter is, unless there's actual press about the propaganda and other stuff, we can't add it. This whole back and forth, while slightly tangental, is all just accusation. -Jéské  (v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!) 22:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pekka-Eric Auvinen
Review this source for notability. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4803.html It says Pekka-Eric Auvinen also posted one of his threats for the Jokela school shooting on 4chan. --William Ortiz (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's email
Aparently 4chan got some press (not much, less than a paragraph) in Slate. They even linked directly to /b/. I don't think 1 throwaway "Explainer" column is enough to merit a section yet, but something else will come up mentioning it. Protonk (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a shitload more info will be needed, and a new section should be added. Just look at the 500 articles in the past four hours about this incident. I haven't looked through all of it, but out of those 500, publications like Time and many others have mentioned 4chan by name. More will surely follow, and articles focusing more closely on 4chan seem inevitable. (Steampowered (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)).
 * I have a Google Alert running on "4chan" in Google News (dedication :P). Some reliable sources that popped through that (as well as the multitude of blogs... I may have accidentally skipped over some RS in the process, sorry if so) include, , and , as well as Gawker controversially publishing the email screenshots. Plenty more out there I'm sure. Giggy (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BBC News. Ottre 14:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was hacked on Tues the 16th, not thurs the 18th 68.185.167.117 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * More sources that 4chan's /b/ was involved in the attack: PC Magazine and Wired. The Wired article in particular gives good info. 128.147.28.1 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, 16 (another came through WHILE I TYPED!) Google Alerts emails on this... on average, 2/3 news stories on each. I don't have the time to sift through them all now, but if there is something important that we've missed in the article (I went through and added an initial dump of content yesterday) then please add it in... I'll sort it when I'm next online. Giggy (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So who's gonna write it? DrinkThineCookies (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC).
 * I found a LATimes source related to this. It also claims that "4chan.org, the hormonal birthplace of Web pranks designed to get a rise out normal Web folks, conveniently drops all discussion threads older than a few minutes."  If that's true, it probably deserves a mention somewhere in the article. Superm401 - Talk 23:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more like several hours (unless they are randomly deleted), though some appear on the archive later on. Giggy (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That depends on the thread creation rate on the board... /b/ holds 11 pages of 15 threads each, the other image boards 11 pages of 10 threads each, and threads, including images and posts, are deleted when "pushed off" the last page - on /b/ this happens when a thread hasn't been active for a few minutes, but on other boards, this can take several hours. MathiasRav (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oprah death hoax
Should this be added into the article? DrinkThineCookies (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Give it a few days, see how big it gets. Ideally we wouldn't include every prank that gets a mention on Wikinews. Giggy (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Relationship of 4chan to Anonymous
An editor has raised a concern that no cited reference links 4chan on anonymous. I don't want to revert the removal of the reference again so I'm inviting everyone to talk it over here. I know for a fact that Dibbell notes the connection between 4chan and Anon but I'm sure other sources do to. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The connection is discussed a good deal in its section. Giggy (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured. I just didn't want to edit war over it.  Thanks. Protonk (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I only noticed this discussion after I reverted... sorry about that. Giggy (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured?
I don't know if 4chan could be, you know, recommended to anyone really... or why an article about it should be "featured". The article itself is a bunch of inside jokes and mostly serves to show that there's a substantial intersection set of wikipedians and /b/tards (sheesh)... --Sigmundur (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whatever. Conspiracy theories aside, take a look at Featured articles. Chances are you've misunderstood what being featured actually means. Don't worry, you're not the first one. Giggy (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WIKIFAGS?! ON MY EBAUMS?!
 * Notability or the, eh, 'correctness' of the article's subject are outside the FA criteria. There is worse topics and people than this featured, believe me. Ceoil  sláinte 13:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to commend the Epic-ness of getting the 4chan article to Featured. I thought i wouldn't see that in my lifetime.  Anyone crying Rules 1 and 2.  Um, this article is not a raid. :D KyuuA4 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The "rules" were created by members of Gaia Online, they don't apply to 4chan, or anyone else, unless you think 4chan is some sort of seeekrut club gaiz. --Opacic (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, this is serious? PARTAY! Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 00:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Tokio Hotel raid
It looks like the Rickroll fans have not only continued to vote for Rick Astley as EMA's best act ever but also raided Tokio Hotel forums and DDoS attacks on fan sites. Does anyone have thoughts on this?
 * I'm finding a lot of this on you tube and it was funny for about a second; but old now....Not a good meme. He's so kitch, its just boring. Ceoil  sláinte 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shoop Da Whoop
How is there not at least a Shoop Da Whoop article, if not an entire page dedicated to it? Surely it's one of the more well known memes, and I think it deserves a mention. I'm too much of a /b/tard to write enough about it, but I call on others to heed my plea. The world needs to know of Da Shoop's origins! Mokushiroku no Yami (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not your personal army? Protonk (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, lazers can only be charged and fired through the use of reliable sources. If you find some that relate this meme to 4chan, please feel free to shout "is dat some RS!" and add them to the article. Kthxbai. Giggy (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, that article has already been deleted over 9,000 times. Protonk (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Over 9000!?!?!?!?!?! Giggy (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Misguiding
Someone keeps deleting this from the talk page. I say ban him. Here's what I wrote: ''I find it highly disturbing that this article fails to even mention that 4chan is a network of/meeting place for pedofiles, rapists and murderers. You wouldn't create the article about Hitler without mentioning that he was a nazi. This article is obviously written by people who condone with such terrible things, and tries to keep it hidden from the public what the site actually is.'' One who reads this article will get the impresion that it's just a regular harmless discussion board--DnivyØ (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hitler's nazism has been mentioned in reliable sources; has the same been done for the claims you make? Giggy (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no tolerance for trolls here. If you continue disrupting the editing process, you will be blocked. Ottre 19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a troll. You're a troll for removing it.--DnivyØ (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You might not have meant it, but this edit struck out Giggy's text above. Please don't do that except in extreme circumstances.  Thanks. Protonk (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you correct me? Ottre 19:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, sort of. I just didn't know if you to comment out the first post and not the second.  figured it was better just to ask. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed more vandalism from DnivyØ. Allegations of Paedophilia against an imageboard are serious business, and without a source it cannot be considered good practice to continue to state it. JustIgnoreMe (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not realizing the difference between paedophilia (a sexual orientation / mental illness, call it what you want as there is no difference and one is just an euphemism for the other), and child rape (either active paedophilia or what is called as 'opportunity rape', not all child rapists are paedophiles, far from that, children are just an easy target you know) for an editor of an encyclopaedia is of similar magnitude.


 * The concept of 'bisexuality' stretches just as well to age as to gender by the way. What am I for being able to like sentient beings of any gender, age, computer programs, aliens, Sarah Kerrigan after she was Zerged? The Borg Queen? Rajakhr (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

O RLY happened before lolcats did
lolcats were about late 2006 early 2007. O RLY had been in circulation before then. I never remember Caturday always involving cats as image macros. Caturday was just image floods of cats (in an attempt to emulate the "cats" board on 2chan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.12.58.68 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So I herd u liek mudkips
Didn't that little meme origionate on deviantart in the first place? after there april fools joke of changing everyones icon to a small 50x50 of a mudkip and the caption "so I herd u liek mudkips"? Sp!der (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't. That meme has been around for years before that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.93.90 (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone asking where memes come from should gb2/ED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.80.146 (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sp!der is correct it's from D-ART, but wrong in that it originated with the All-Fools' Day joke when I firsst got involved with the SIHULM trolling in 2007. See Talk:Mudkip/Archive02. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 08:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Add this to keep it FA standard
Articles like this should be kept up to date to remain FA. So before I list this at FAR. It may not require a new section but should probably be mentioned.--Otterathome (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10058410-93.html
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/04/AR2008100400180.html
 * http://voices.allthingsd.com/20081003/citizen-journalism-not-a-failure-blogs-a-failure/
 * http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/18189/19213/view.phtml
 * http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/10/25/sources-sec-identifies-steve-jobs-heart-attack-prankster
 * http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/10/06/sec-investigating-last-weeks-steve-jobs-heart-attack-rumor
 * http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/10/03/friday-apple-links-steve-jobs-still-not-dead
 * http://www.techzine.nl/nieuws/18211/Hartaanval-Steve-Jobs-was-een-flauwe-grap.html (dutch)
 * http://news.cnyes.com/stock/dspnewsS.asp?fi=\NEWSBASE\20081006\WEB1988&vi=34080 (taiwanese)
 * ...Be bold? I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I'd be pretty upset if you listed this at FAR just for not including the Jobs bit.  Thanks for collecting those sources.  Someone will add that section at some point.  IMO, an FAR for an article being out of date is more appropriate for something years out of date, rather than months out of date. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It provides an additional incentive.--Otterathome (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What does, this ultimatum? What stops you from writing the section?  Or, more importantly, what stops you from requesting an FAR?  If you think that there are actionable reasons why this article isn't an example of wikipedia's best work, then by all means, start that process.  If, on the other hand, you have some new content you would like added to the article, threatening an FAR isn't really the best way to convince people to work collaboratively with you. Protonk (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't add this in because when I first heard about it I doubted it would be a big deal. Seems there's more out there than I thought. You're welcome to add then content in, else I'll get around to it when I have a bit of time on my hands. Giggy (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, isn't there a three-month grace period between passing FAC and being eligible for listing at FAR? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's very little coverage of 4chan here, but I have added a line nevertheless. Skomorokh  20:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another source, from NY Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?_r=1 Malwebolence. The trolls among us] --Enric Naval (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Iw link fi from fi:Kuvafoorumi#4chan to fi:4chan
Could someone please do that. Prepost (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅.--Otterathome (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Futaba Channel (http://www.2chan.net)
Futaba Channel has been nominated for deletion. A suggestion has been made at the deletion page for it to be merged here. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Puzzled
I don't understand how the 4chan site works and this article didn't make it any clearer. Why would anyone want to contribute to a site that only retains the contributions for 24 hours? How can they follow threads when they expire so fast? How do they keep track of what's read, like on a normal bulletin board or forum system? Do people use something else than a web browser to read it? It seems completely different from anything else, and the differences should be mentioned in the article. --94.192.125.169 (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a contribution, it is weak and temporary entertainment. The site is not serious and should never ever be taken seriously (alot of abuse, racism, sexism etc takes place there and is far from serious but rather bawdy humor) And to answer your question on keeping track of whats posted and read; It isn't. 4chan is anonymous plain and simple. 58.107.55.202 (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Think of it as instant messaging with pictures. That's all. A popular imageboard is basically a cross between a forum and instant messaging, although less popular imageboards tend to have the content stay around for more than a day, possibly a week or more. It's a website, you don't need anything other than a browser to use it. If you want stuff to stay around, you have to rely on the users themselves. Posts that become popular are often replicated by way of "copypasta," meaning something that is copied and pasted. A pun of copy+paste and pasta. Images that become popular are often saved and reposted by regulars, as well. Basically, it's a community where the popularity of contributions in the minds of the users makes them last, rather than any other factor. 124.180.117.57 (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This article says 4chan is an imageboard website, which according to that article is an Internet forum. Neither really talks about archival, except when related to gravedigging trolls, implying that old threads are still available. I for one have never used any other forum where content older than 24 hours was not available, so I don't think 4chan or maybe imageboards in general are common forums in that sense. It indeed looks like the people frequenting the 4chan site are doing the machine work themselves. The so called copypasta isn't from any archives but from the users themselves; they keep reposting the same content over and over again, especially on the requests board and in all "sauce" threads. On any other forum reposts would quickly be directed to the previous threads, centralising the knowledge or whatever there. On imageboards known images could easily be compared by a computer to find existing discussion. This is an interesting use of human power for that purpose, and there must be other reasons not to keep the old content. Either way, it should be mentioned in the article. --Anonymous 01:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.216.8 (talk)

The reason is simple, and the source is some blog post of moot's: On /b/, several hundred thousands posts are made every day, which means no one but Google would have any hopes of storing that long-term. MathiasRav (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous running gag
"a running gag on 4chan holds that Anonymous is not a single person but a collective (hive) of users.[16]"

This line wrong, it should be the other way around. Anonymous is a collection of users, thousands of them. The running gag is that anonymous is one person and all posts made my "anonymous" are made by this person. 124.180.222.98 (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A collection is not the same as a collective. Shii (tock) 23:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, my mistake there, but I don't think this changes anything. The article makes it sound like anonymous is normally believed to be one person. The reference cited, http://www.4chan.org/faq#anonymous, says this: "He [anonymous] is a god amongst men. Anonymous invented the moon, assassinated former President David Palmer, and is also harder than the hardest metal known to man: diamond. His power level is rumored to be over nine thousand. He currently resides with his auntie and uncle in a town called Bel-Air (however, he is West Philadelphia born and raised). He does not forgive." Anonymous is literally a collective hive, while this segment shows the running gag referencing anonymous as one man and poser. 124.180.222.98 (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with 124.180.222.98, as anonymous is clearly not a single person. However, I would point out that the other way around is also untrue, since anonymous is widely acknowledged as a collective.  In fact, as the quote 124 mentions is immediately preceded by "Anonymous is not a single person, but rather, represents the collective whole of 4chan."  I suggest that the line should be deleted entirely.  -- Truthful  Cynic  01:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Trolls
"They are often referred to by outsiders as trolls"

Change trolls to: newfags

A troll means that it has been posted before. The term is always thought to mean something vauge, and most people can't actually define a "troll"

And newfags explains itself.


 * That's not what a troll is at all. "Copypasta" is something posted before, a "troll" is someone who posts falsely simply to stir up things, like "flame-baiting." A troll might post very obnoxiously and claim to be underage or something like that just to get a rise out of you. This term isn't exclusive to 4chan, either. It's used on English boards everywhere. 124.180.49.127 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)