Talk:Pwn/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Earliest occurrence

Can anyone find anything earlier than this post (August 1999)? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-1 14:59

  • Yep, me playing any of several games prior to that, along with thousands of other gamers, and seeing it plastered all over the web. To deny that its origins are in question is a factual innacuracy, as they are, and most likely always will be. There is very little proof of anything regarding this word. To its users, it is as simple and commonplace as the word dog, or pants. Its there, it gets used, and no reason is seen to document its use. RE: my entry about pronounciation, I take it you didn't find anything wrong with that, since you said nothing about it?
    • I just wanted to know if anyone could find a documented earlier source than that. Of course I and others used the term earlier, but what does that matter? We don't do original research here. Of course the origins are in question; who is saying they aren't? We can't just state our own beliefs about the origins, however. At most, we can provide the most logical origin (the misspelling of own), and then say that "other origins have been posited". — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-3 08:11

I would hardly consider it original research, but more along the lines of public/common/reasonable knowledge or whatever you want to call it. Generally this is determined either by consensus of participating members, or a look at the general masses involved with the subject matter. It would seem that such a look at the general masses quite obviously yeilds the result I was talking about before. Wikipedia defines in WP:NOR that original research constitutes formulating a thesis, or using unrecognized or non-reliable sources, not stating fact. Otherwise everything on the site could be considered so called "original research". These theories are stated as just that, Theories held by a signifigant portion of the demographic that the word occurs with. If this wasn't clear enough in the previous wordings I can make it so. Last time I checked NOR was not meant to impede the usage of accepted factual information simply because it does not have sources to the letter, so to speak.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


The article is missing the connection to the word pawn (as in the weakest and lowest raking chess piece) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Its already been discussed and is not notable. It is essentially a contrived connection made after the fact by chess fans.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 07:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the word could be easily connected to pawn. I pronounce the word "pawnd". To be pwn3d, is to say that someone showed that you are a low ranking, unpowerful player. Essentially a pawn. GameMasterCore 20:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it could pawn as in
He went to the _pawn_ shop to _pawn_ his old TV.

Fatalserpent 05:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for addition Read the news story, then someone made a comment "pwned". This wiki article claims it wants sources. 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

what exactly does it verify? All I get from it is that the word "pwn" has been in use for at least 4 days.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the person misspelled "owned". :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-11 05:48
Several days ago though. The only sources we need are really regarding the origins, which are pretty much agreed to be from the before the year 2000.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if that site is notable enough for its own article. Anomo 07:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ephemeral adolescent cult slang

If Wikipedia continues to wank out articles like this one, it will go blind. --Tysto 03:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess since you use big words you're more mature? Step off the high horse. Avengerx 13:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Too bad Wikipedia wasn't founded in the 1950s. We would have oodles of swell articles on all the hep lingo that the cool cats and dollies were using. That would be the ginchiest, daddy-o. --Tysto 20:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
That would be great, I'm sure someone studying 1950's American culture would love to have entries like that for research and reference. While you may not realize it, slang and lingo for individual cultures reflects immensely on the time period and on the people who live within it. The term 'pwn' has been around for several years, and maintains common usage within the online gaming community. The word demonstrates a very prominent culture for today's youth, and therefore I think it would be very useful for someone researching youth culture or internet culture to have this article. Avengerx 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd certainly say this article would give a parent concerned about their child's online exposure more information than those parent articles microsoft and the like put out, no?--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 10:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone studying 1950s culture should read original sources, but for casual readers we should have an article on 1950s slang, not individual articles on ginchie and daddy-o. The point is, there is already an article on Internet slang. There is no need for the overwrought faux scholarship of an article like this. You can explain everything anyone will ever need to know about pwn in two sentences. Even if you think this is a culturally significant term, it should be a sub-section under "own" in Internet slang. --Tysto 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This has already come up in a deletion proposal once. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and try to get it deleted again. Outside of a deletion debate it serves no purpose to pose these questions or hypothetical alternatives.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 08:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Awsome idea! we need this article --> Ephemeral adolescent cult slang. I'm going to get to work on it now! Coolies!! --Shadow Puppet 20:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you know the term is ephemeral until it has ceased to be used? "Ginchie" was ephemeral, as no one uses it now. "Pwn" isn't, as it's still in use. N'cest pas? Optimus Sledge 03:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Phrack Magazine and Phrack World News

This may or may not have anything to do with the modern usage, but I discovered something interesting when doing a google search of There seems to have been a Phreaking newsletter whose news section was Phrack World News, commonly abbreviated as PWN (and referenced as such in various other files and word listings). This may have also played off of "Pulse Width Modulation". Seems like the magazine started in '85 and the abbreviation started at least in '86. --ShawnF

See my comment below. kostmo 04:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Owning and Unix

This is just a personal opinion, but I'm surprised I haven't seen this mentioned more in terms of theories. I'd always been under impression that pwn comes out of the cracking community, relating to Unix file permissions. In Unix, you "own" your files, while the root account effectively "owns" the system. The command to change file permissions is even "chown". For instance, check out this document which talks about gaining ownership of files, etc through security holes. It seems a reasonable possitility that this turned into successful hacking exploits described as "owning a system" and as a term relating to superiority. --ShawnF

Cite tags

I think, with some rewording, the origins could lose the cite tags. Much of this is common knowledge, and could be passable without cite tags everywhere. This isn't to say they are not needed, but having too many cite tags is unsightly and non-MOS. --Shadow Puppet 20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed seval of the cite tags from the origins section, and I am noting here that in regards to the main tag, this section is in need of referencing. --Shadow Puppet 21:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

the actual term "pwn" or "pwned" originates from the game Warcraft where a mispelling of the term "owned" was used by the game to indicate when a player had defeated another player.

Any truth to this? --Shadow Puppet 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely. Its been under debate for as long as I can remember. The word's entymology(sp?) suffers from the "I know someone who knows someone" syndrome. Its very difficult to find a citable statement defining its origin, and as you can see from this talk page, and the article's history, a lot of people come in claiming to know exactly what they are talking about when in fact they are either blatantly wrong, or have absolutely no citation. The best we can do is cite the most common speculations on the part of outside sources. Hence not breaking either citation policy or WP:NOR. As a result one can disprove claims but it will probably be impossible to prove any. For example, there are documented uses of the word pwn before starcraft came out, so its out of the question that starcraft was the origin. However the warcraft one is a possiblity as far as I know, because I have not seen any reliable sources stating otherwise.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Broken reference link

The "Parent's Primer" link under Resources is defective. --Luc 03:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved your statement here to a new section instead of having it as a part of an expired line of discussion that hasn't been addressed in 4 months. Its more suited for its own section anyways. To answer your statement. It is, but should remain there, as it was a legitimate reference when was accessed and posted. I will note that the link is broken, but as a citation it needs to remain.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


This term is just a typo of "own", which already has an article. I'm suggesting we merge it. Also, there are references at the bottom, so I don't see why the {{not verified}} tag was added again. Isopropyl 04:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The needs verification tag is there because not all of the information in the article is covered by those references. Well time to put in my 2 cents. Don't Merge. Pwn and Owned have diverged greatly since their inception into internet culture. While they are varying degrees of the same meaning, that is not a reason to merge. Merging pwn to owned would make no sense, as is would be bigger than the parent article. Merging Owned into pwn would probably make even less sense. The previous VFD speaks to this also. Merging them into one article to cover the entire scope of both words would be haphazard and messy. The information on the two diverges a good deal. Also, Merging an article with this many contributions and such a long history of serious development and contribution is asking for trouble.

  • I would be alright with merging the content. Since much of this article is unsourced and technically original research, it would probably be better for the encyclopedia if this content was trimmed down to only the most likely origins and other obvious or sourced content. If it were merged, I would put it under a "Variants" section at owned. While I normally prefer letting articles remain separate, this term is far too close in usage and meaning to own, not to mention the fact that it was just a simple misspelling of the word. There are numerous other examples of terms for which their misspelling became the norm, the only difference in this case being that the misspelling is intentional; the closest example to this, that I can think of, would be the intentional spelling of G-d. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-8 16:18

Do not merge Pwned has become it's own word, like bootylicious . We do not combine that word with delicious, why should we do this with pwn. leave pwn the way it is.

  • False analogy. Bootylicious and delicious don't mean the same thing, and no reliable source recognizes pwn as its own word. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-9 03:05

Suggest we reach a consensus on merging this article with owned; see parallels at Alternative spellings of "the". I'm going to start a poll for merge on 11 March 2006 if we can't agree on something. Isopropyl 06:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Good to hear that you're going to hold off on that though. A better option would be an RFC or something simmilar if we can't reach concensus. From my experience with them, they just create more division and strife amongst the participants. The only time I've ever seen them do well is when there is no dispute, and they are purely for data collection. I can provide an example or two of this if you like.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 06:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A poll is not the answer. Polls are not enforceable in a situation like this because the Wikipedia community and the people that happen to be watching this page are always changing. I will close any poll you put on this talk page, in favor of discussion with rationale, since that is all that matters. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and voting is not consensus. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-9 16:52
    • I feel I should note that I have had a very meaningful discussion regarding how to approach that issue on my talk page. Per that, we've agreed that if it comes to it, which it doubtfully will, an Rfc would be a much better solution. Its obvious that while there is disagreement on the issue, we are willing to work towards a common goal, something that pleases me greatly. Honestly I'd be more content to see everyone agree on something even if it means losing the article (so to speak). That being said, would anyone object to keeping it seperate if in the next week or so this article were expanded to show enough seperate meaning and usage of pwn from the original own? Of course, this would be provided that adequate sources were cited in doing so. I have a spring break starting tomorrow, and I feel that I would be able to get a lot of work done to either prove or disprove my point. Before anybody cites WP:NOR on this, I want to point out that by proving my point I mean finding reliable sources that agree with the issue.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Expansion would only be allowable in this situation if the new content is reliably sourced. The article as it stands is already filled with too much original research. If anything it should be trimmed down, not expanded. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-9 21:44
        • As I mentioned, I would not include anything that does not have a reliable source. I will probably only consider these things such as a peer reviewed or otherwise recognized article discussing pwn, or things such as screenshots and so on, proving date of usage. Maybe a couple other types of things, but along those lines.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 06:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
          Please see my comment in the section below.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • "Pwn" holds a unique meaning in the computer world. Don't merge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparky2002b (talkcontribs) .
        • Don't Merge. It would automatically discount all the other origins of the word besides as a typo of "owned". It would be like saying "This word comes from here" and then saying "Well, it might not". You can't do that in an encyclopedia article. Isn't it possible that the word surfaced in multiple places at the same time? Kind of like how the word "No" has a place in a bunch of languages? --Scharb 16:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: removal of "language filter" theory

Kindly don't ascribe motives to people based on your own supposition. I didn't remove it as the result of "a talk page dispute". I intially attempted to FIX the entry by providing a counterpoint to the unsourced speculation. Since that was rejected, I had no choice but to remove it. Kindly explain why my addition was unacceptable yet the entry as it stands IS acceptable. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is an entirely different process. When something is already present and has been for a while, it is often bad form to simply remove it. The best solution to something that is long standing as part of the article is to add a {{Citation needed}} tag It is one thing to aviod adding unsourced information from an article, it is another to take that information out. If you believe a citation of something that is a current part of the article is needed, it is best to bring it to the attention of other wikipedians, who may then attempt to rectify the problem first if you do not wish to. Simply removing all unsourced information unceremoniously does nothing for Wikipedia that could not be done better with a little elbow grease so to speak.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a LONG STANDING citation needed tag for the entire article, don't be glib. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Glib? No, not really. I've put a lot of thought into this. Balancing it with my real life problems is starting to wear on me, but its important enough that I'm sticking with wikipedia as much as I can. I'm trying to do everything I can to improve the article. That can take time. Google is a pain to filter through, I mean, it returns plenty of relevant results if you know what to look for... but its still quite difficult to find anything authoritative in a case like this. And pouring through peer reviewed journals is just as painful in a different way. Infotrac and Ebsco are, contrary to popular belief, a gigantic mess of hell. I have to find public links or references to these things too, because I'm sure if I cite them without providing proof of their existence, they will likely be disregarded. Since the current article, that has been left standing for a while has had the source tag on it, there is no harm in letting it sit for a short while longer while work is done to verify, refute, and correct any statements on here that lack citation. As a matter of fact if I and I say I because I seem to be the only one taking an interest in doing this referencing research (if anyone else wants to help.. please do!)am unable to find enough evidence in about a week, this article will probably be merged into Owned anyway. Lastly, I've been nothing but civil, so I would appreciate it if you would not resort to what appear to be attempts at belittling me with your vocabulary. We're all adults here... well, that may or may not be technically true... but we are all mature individuals, with the same interest, a better Wikipedia. The best thing to do is to take this at a pace, handle it deliberately and with as much care as possible (within reason of course), to make this article factually accurate, informative, and functionally sound. All I ask is that you humor me for a few days. I have stated in the merge discussion that if I am unable to find this information, I will recede my objections, and help in merging this article with Owned. I would like to apply the same premise to this situation if I may. In a week or so, if I have haven't found anything signifigant to support the statement and related ones, I will have absolutely no problem with it being removed from the article. Sorry about the long post.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 07:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I seemed hostile, but I took some of your statements and edit summaries to be rather confrontational and accusatory when I was honestly trying to edit the article to improve it. If you think you're going to be able to solve things in the short term, I have no problem waiting a few days. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have been extremely busy with coursework and such, and I don't see any reason to hold this process any longer while I have been unable to find enough verifiable information and references on the subject. As a result, I will not object to the merge with Owned or the changes we have been discussing. However, I am not changing my position, just yeilding that there is no point in fighting for it while I obviously do not have the time to do the job right. As it stands I would just be wasting everyone else's time. If the merge is done though, I would just ask that before the article is deleted (which of course would happen after the transfer of relevant information) that a recent version and this talk page be archived somewhere. Maybe at a later date when I have less restrictions on my time I may be able to do the project justice, but for now I'm just holding it back. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


leave it as it is, it is a very scolarly definiton for a simple term as pwn —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

A couple of things... Although having someone agree with my point on the issue is nice, I question the validity of an IP. Best to make sure its not a sock puppet if someone has the capacity to do that. Also I dont see why this warranted its own section? As a matter of fact, I cant even tell 100% if it is referring to the merger debate or the sourcing problem.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 02:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I thought it was referring to that old AFD at the top of the talk page. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-12 02:32
I guess thats a possibility too. Either way... aw whatever.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


"Another origin stems from the degree of domination involved in a game. Some gamers use the term pwn as a higher form of "own," meaning that they are "owning" in a more distinguishable fashion."

That seems much less like an "origin" and much more like a usage note to me. Sure, maybe it's used (by some) as a "more distinguishable" form of "owning", but that doesn't explain why it came to be used that way.

--MattR.R. 01:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Why is no one suggesting a link between pwn and pawn (the chess peace)? I remember learning the word verbally as slang way before ever hearing of warcraft or seeing the word used on the internet. I assumed the term was derived from suggesting that a person had such little playing skills that he was just a minor piece with little threat being manipulated or toyed with like pawn would be by a master chess player. In addition no one seems to have any specific information about the warcraft theory (no exact map title, no screen-shots, nothing) and even if there were, how many people would have seen this originally? Pwn is cute, but not nearly as hilarious or ironic as "all your base are belong to us," not nearly interesting enough to stick around for as long as it has. To own someone is not as humiliating as not only to own them and manipulate them because they are worthless. I suggest that the origin of the word is from a chess slang pawn and was shortened for brevity to pwn.

  • For as much as the Warcraft theory has been stuck in this article, nobody has ever bothered to get a screenshot of this typo. I was playing video games back when nobody used pwn, and witnessed the shift from own to pwn; I very much doubt that the kids playing Quake even know how to play chess. There is no doubt that the term came from own. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-4 15:49
Brian is right. I saw it happen too. The ONLY origin of "pwn" is in parody of those who mistyped "own". It did not start any other way and has no other meaning. It has absolutely no connection with the word pawn, or any of the other unhelpful myths. Tale 22:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The pawn reference, no offence, is just a a minor branch theory catered to by chess afficionados that, regardless of validity, simply co-exists with its internet origins. It would not be the first time that one thing was created in two seperate places by two seperate parties completely independently.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the person that wrote this article. I think relating pwn to "pawn" is much more meaningful, and at the same time, more degrading to the one being pwn3d. If you relate it to own you might as well say that you own someone, not that you pwn them. It goes no further than that. GameMasterCore 21:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The typo occurred in the other direction... IE: pawn ---> pwn ---> own. I assure you pawned was around before "0wned".

Origin section.

I have been thinking about this, and assuming that the article does not get merged (I conceded my objections to that a while ago) I propose the following:

Due to the nature of the word and the article as a result, it might be best to rethink the manner in which the origins section is presented. Almost no origin will have citable notation of its existence. The best bet would be to collect the most prevalent [b]theories[/b] on origins, and note them as such. If done properly it will not violate WP:NOR and will actually make for a much more informational article. For example, the Warcraft origin is so prevalent on the net that while no pictoral proof exists (I searched 10 results list pages deep into the google search a number of times.) that it was used, it is a prevalent theory by respected gaming websites, and should be noted [b]as a prevailing theory[/b]. This can be done for others as well, and would provide for the most comprehensive coverage of the issue as possible. The key to making this work would be to make very clear, perhaps redundantly, that these are outside theories, not necessarily proven, and not necessarily fact, but that they are important to be noted. Just like it is important to note that there are people who believe in creationism even though it is a thoery by all accounts.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Typo theory twice + unmentioned Chess theory

It is odd that the typo theory is listed twice. Since there is nothing really to suggest the word comes from the Counterstrike game other than it is often used there, as it is on almost all games these days. I suggest that the typo in counterstrike theory be removed or merged with the first point.

Personally I know of only 2 theories, one that "pwn" is a typo on "own" and the other that it is a reference to the chess piece (pawn) which is supposed to be the strongest piece on the board; so in a game of chess, finishing a game victoriously with a pawn is called "pawning." The standard internet/SMS shortening of words usually just means missing out vowels, so "pawn" would shorten to "pwn." I haven't made these edits myself as i can't be bothered dealing with closed minded critics and authors who don't like to be corrected. Perhaps someone could consider doing so, after verifying the chess theory, or at least dealing with my first point. --KX36 20:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see the deal with the pawn theory, go over the rest of this talkpage. I knows its been covered.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 04:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not trying to mouth you KX36, but the pawn in a chess game is the weakest piece, not the strongest. GameMasterCore 21:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any point to this? The issue was settled already. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 06:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Owned into Pwn not other way around

The article should be called Pwn. That is the most used term currently. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  18:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You are kidding right? This is the most foolish thing I've heard yet! Merge a real word that has been in use much longer with a slang term derived from it? Hah! Also, this already had a section up top, why does a new section have to be created every single time someone feels they have something to say? Foolishness.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster. Owned was the original word. it came around by MISSPELLING. People are still trying to say own.
No they aren't. How about this instead: Pwn focuses on it's use typed and Owned focuses on it's use spoken. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep them separate

Though "pwn" originated as a misspelling of the word "own", it has become, over time, a word in itself, and thus should remain on a separate page. Own and pwn have two different meanings (owned means "dominated" whereas pwned means "more than dominated"), and should therefore be kept separate. This is like saying we should put the words "loquatious", "eloquent", and "colloquium" all on the same page as the Latin word "loquor", since it came first. What's the point in merging them anyway?

  • Agree --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Also agree. Pwn != own. To pwn is strictly to dominate; the other uses of "own" don't work with "pwn." No one would speak, for example, of "car pwnership." The use of "pwn" is both notable and verifiable, would be strange and inappropriate in another article, and clearly deserves its own. --Hyperbole 06:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Exactly. Pwn is it's own word. Keep it seperate!
  • Very much agree. The most important point is that "pwn" is used by a certain community, at a certain time (while pwn1ng each other at Half-Life, for instance. They are very different cultural concepts in my view and should remain separate. Grandmasterka 07:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Another agreement on keeping them separate I share Brian's concerns about the verifiability of the content of this article. Having said that, I see the main benefit of the verifiability requirement as avoiding "crank theories" that subvert accepted knowledge. In this case, the problem is that there isn't much accepted knowledge, so the theories in this article aren't subversive. Having said that, in the absence of independently verifiable origins, folding "pwn" into "own" would seem to imply that this origin is settled. (Hopefully more research will come in over time, and perhaps that will change my opinion.) Jebbo 16:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree No no no no and NOH! Pwn has a sort of different meaning from Own, as the article states (is higher than Own on a scale of relative power). Pwn and Own should be kept seperate! --CherryT 04:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with everyone else here. pwn and own are two different entities here, and shouldn't be mixed. (One being (now) l337, the other being traditional English.) -jma89
  • I agreejust cause I don't ewanna stop pronouncing it POHWN when I'm playing ma video games.
  • Agree June-gloom 20:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • DISAGREE - COMPLETELY. It appears there has been a somewhat concerted effort to limit this article to gamer usages of the term. It has evolved, it now has usage beyond the gaming world and as such, the term pwned is now a diminuative for the pairing of both pwned! and OWNED! - at least in the debate forums where they are used to denote varied degrees of "gotcha".

I added a section on debate forums back in October and it seems some folks don't like the idea of "THEIR" word being appropriated by other groups for purposes other than the one they believe it rightfully should apply to.

How very "French" of y'all. The French refuse to allow words from other language groups to enter their lexicon, choosing instead to creat whole new words to be "French" instead of seeing their language bastardized by borrowed words. Wikipedia is neither "French", nor is it the exclusive property of the gaming community. OWNED! & pwned! are now as intricately paired as Mickey and Minnie Mouse in the debate forums, get over the fact they are seperate words because in debate circles, they are not, they are simply comparatives of the same objective usage - to "own" someone.The fact OWNED! is now ranked as a higher form than pwned! in debate circles is proof that not only has the usage evolved, but the very status of pwned as a superlative is no longer a valid concept in the world at large. i4 07:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to direct you to the word "sandwich". That started English. Guess what the French word for a sandwich is? Also, OWNED! is only superlative to pwned by dint of its capitalisation. PWNED! is a step higher again. Keep separate, they are different words. Related, and should be linked to each other, but different. Heliomance 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree They are now two different words, with a different sound and different meaning. Even the sound of pwn is much stronger and more forceful than own. I like the definition of pwn as "powerfully owned."

PwnerTV 09:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Pure Pwnage Pronunciation

Is it worth adding that Pure Pwnage charecters (most notably Jeremy) pronounce "Pwn" as "Own"? In Episode 10 it made this point very strongly, with Jeremy responding harshly to someone who pronounces it "pone"

Should i add this to the article? Tommygun141 05:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they fall under the mantle of "reputable source." Rufous 00:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy learned to read and write in gaming chat, so he thinks own is spelled pwn. He's also one-upping on cool, as if he were saying "You think you're cool for pronouncing it pown? Well, I'm even cooler for pronouncing it own."

Hardcore gamers always say pown because that's the only way to communicate pwn over voice com, and when you're hardcore killing, you don't have time to type.

Jeremy is definitely not hardcore--he had a total breakdown just from playing a little WoW, lol. PwnerTV 09:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Conjugation of Pwn

I think that somebody should definitely add the conjugation of 'pwn' and 'to pwn.' I pwn, you pwn, he she it pwns. He is pwnt, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Is there really a legitimate conjugation? I thought nerds would just make it up individually to suit their individual tastes. But if you do add this, you will need a citation. (I wonder if it the conjugation is confused by non-English speakers. )
Answer this for me: is pwn supposed to mirror own, but with a slightly different connotation, or are the two regarded as wholly distinct? Rintrah 14:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for the slow response, but I have no sources or anything about it. I would think that pwn and own are essentially the same thing. And as far as conjugation goes, I realize that it probably isn't standardized or anything of the sort as of now.
I don't know, because I am not a gamer. Your assertion is contrary to the article's; if you can substantiate it, you ought to amend the article. I doubt that the conjugation would ever become standardised, unless gamers formed an independent country on their own island. Rintrah 12:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm French and my keyboard is an AZERTY. And the third line displays "[...] A Z E R T Y U I O P [...]". Could we change the sentence that says it's exclusively on QWERTYs ?--Kirochi (talk)

This is or English wiki, so it only matter for the common English users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Double Entendre

References to 'poon'

Why was this section removed? I'm bringing it back till some has a good reason for its removal --Bushido Brown 18:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it sounds like someone's poor idea of a joke, and doesn't reference any sources. Rufous 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Refrence any Sources? What are you talking about? The pronounciation used for the Double Entendre section is one of the many pronounciations listed in the pronounciation table. The Poon disambiguation page even mentions Poon as a shortoning of Poontang. Literally speaking if you say pwn out loud as poon it is a Double entendre. Removing this section from the article would be like removing the double entende information and any reference to vagina from the pussy article and relegating it to a word that can only describe a house cat. --Bushido Brown 05:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well whats your response? --Bushido Brown 17:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think anything should be removed which adds additional information. The poon pronunciation is used by gamers to be especially insulting, usually in a good-natured way, to a guildmate they're in vent (voice com) with. PwnerTV 09:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

References to 'porn'

Jinx is selling clothing printed with the logo 'pwn*', a spoof on the popular 'porn*'/'pornstar' logos. Note: the product is listed as "Pownstar Sweatshirt".

Am I the only one who thinks the spoken article file is hilarious?

The spoken article file is probably the funniest thing I've heard in years. I love how the person reads entire URLs out loud. It's almost surreal. What's the point? I love it when the person says "we pwn3d them hardcore in that basketball game" and "I was pwning like crazy". Hahahahahaha!!! BRILLIANT!!! NIRVANA2764 02:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Many are hilarious, especially when they are read by a teenager who is not used to reading aloud. 03:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

PIE "see also" removal

So what exactly does this article have to do with the topic? (Edit was instituted here, in case you were wondering.) I'm removing it, as it's one of the 3 only edits of an obvious vandal (except a bit more subtle this time). --V2Blast 00:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the editor was trying to insinuate that "pwn" was part of a primitive language. Rintrah 06:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


A large portion of the people speaking this language are 400lb monstrosities living on take-aways in their mum's basement, so when typing 'owned' into world of warcraft with their dialing wand, the result was often incorrect. Any takers?

That's what the article already says, but without the hilarious characterisation... Rufous 01:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Those nerds got pwned! Oh dear. I must be a monstrosity too. I shall have to console myself with some stale pizza — yum yum yum yum yum. Seriously, nerds and bad spellers existed before World of Warcraft. Rintrah 20:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


I came to this page and there was this sentence, in boldface: The origination of the term leads back (as does all computer related topics) to hackers. When one would hack into a box and gain 'root' access, that box would then be 'own'ed by said hacker. When said hackers would post details in the various messaging/chat communities the common typo was made (a lot). Then gamers, wise-crackers, graphic artists, musicians, kids that follow trends and large corporate entities adopted the phrase to match their individual requirements of the word "pwn". I clicked "edit", but the sentence was not in the code. WTF? Canderous Ordo 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Same problem here, there is this text that appears in the second paragraph of the article. I wanted to remove it, but it doesnt appear in the source... "It also is a verb that can mean, to emulate or to do what the {DOTS} online gaming community does. Their forums can be accessed here. You will not be dissapointed if you join. After all, if they didn't pwn, how would they get on the web page you are reading now. Divisions include Star Wars Battlefront II, America's Army, Star Wars Republic Commando, and in the near future, Guild Wars" -- 14:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Hicksta and general quality of article

"Samuel Hicksta" is mentioned a few times in the introduction but he (?) is not explained.
He doesn't seem to warrant his own article on Wikipedia, and so I want to suggest the removal of those references.

Also, the entire article has many punctuation / spelling errors which give a definite "low quality" feel.
I have fixed one or two, but there are simply too many for me to want to attempt!

I believe that this article needs to be seriously polished or even removed. 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Samuel Hicksta references had been added today and were just removed as vandalism. --Onorem 17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. The bad punctuation seems to have gone too. Face turns red... Thanks! 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to remove all the "e"'s :(