Talk:4chan

These quotes are straight from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official and founding policy of Wikipedia.

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."

"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

Archives

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

/something/

Would it not be useful to create a list of all the "/something/"s on 4chan and what they mean? That's what I came to the article looking for... Crowley 09:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A list of the boards is visible when one goes to the website.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So just because it's on another website is a reason why we shouldn't have it here? Doesn't that invalidate most of the whole Wikipedia...? Crowley 11:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be long list that wouldn't really add anything to the article. All that could be sourced is the topic of each board, which is in the frame beside front page, and the rules of each board, which is on it's own page. Trying to discuss the culture and in-jokes of even the popular boards (/a/, /b/, /v/, etc.) would steer too far into original research. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second the request for the explanation of /b/, /t/, etc. I always thought I was tech-savvy, but this 4-chan/2-chan thing is absolutely beyond me. I came here looking for an explanation of the /whatever/s and instead find only that terms like /b/ are thrown around without definition.--Iritscen 17:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not just any website that the "/somethings/" are posted on. It's on 4chan itself. There's an option that allows you to display the boards and their respective symbols (or whatever the actual letters are called). If you really need the board list that badly, I'll just copy/paste it for you. /b/ is the Random board and the one with no rules, which makes it quite popular. /b/ is probably 4chan's most popular and active board. It is also where most of 4chan's memes originate. As a side note, most of 4chan's users are complete idiots, but you probably already know that.

This thing won't let me post lists? That sucks...[converted to list by iritscen]

• /a/ - Anime & Manga
• /an/ - Animals & Nature
• /b/ - Random
• /c/ - Anime/Cute
• /cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL
• /ck/ - Food & Cooking
• /cm/ - Cute/Male
• /co/ - Comics & Cartoons
• /d/ - Hentai/Alternative
• /e/ - Ecchi
• /g/ - Technology
• /gif/ - Animated GIF
• /h/ - Hentai
• /hr/ - High Resolution
• /k/ - Weapons
• /m/ - Mecha
• /mu/ - Music
• /n/ - News
• /o/ - Auto
• /p/ - Photography
• /po/ - Papercraft & Origami
• /r/ - Request
• /s/ - Sexy Beautiful Women
• /t/ - Torrents
• /tg/ - Traditional Games
• /tv/ - Television & Film
• /u/ - Yuri
• /v/ - Video Games
• /w/ - Anime/Wallpapers
• /wg/ - Wallpapers/General
• /x/ - Paranormal
• /y/ - Yaoi

Mathew Williams 07:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. At least the list is on the discussion page, which is better than nowhere. --Iritscen 17:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just look at http://www.4chan.org/rules.php , where it's described in detail.

207.161.63.213 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Lists for the sake of lists are frowned upon and the article describes the breadth of topics covered on 4chan. Leaving it on the talk: page seems like the best plan.

Copy-editing

I have just made a variety of edits to the article that, hopefully, will lead to improved readability.Plovis 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. The article seems much unreadable now. Word choices like "humor is...frequently characterized" are vague and used in an improper context. "...remove instances of illegal content as soon as possible, as well as ban the individuals responsible for them..." is wordier than "...remove instances of illegal content as soon as possible, as well as ban the individuals who submit it". While some of it is valid (i.e. "residents" to "users", act -> attempt, and so forth) I don't know if it's really any better than it used to be. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a correct use of the word characterized and, while I agree it is somewhat vague, the assertion demands that kind of vagueness. Not everything in /b/ is an inside joke, but sometimes it is. One would not want the article to overly stress the inside nature of the humor. As for your second criticism, one can be responsible for an "instance," but one cannot "submit" one. Plovis 18:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That really isn't the correct use of characterized here. Maybe you can characterize a sense of humour or say that a sense of humour is exemplified by something but you don't characterize humour in general when referring to things that the vast majority of people would call retarded. Fratley 14:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. In this context "exemplified" and "characterized" could be used interchangably. I think, however, that the sentence should focus on /b/, not on its users. So, rather than "the humor of /b/tards..." it should speak of "humorous postings found on /b/" or something similar.

I'm removing the fox news reference, it has nothing to do with 4chan. It was in fact about 420chan, which the anonymous informant strives to counter act. It has nothing to do with 4chan, it can be put in an overall "Anonymous" article, but has no place here. They never once show 4chan or mention 4chan in the video. Also, rules 1 and 2.

Deletion?

I noticed that this article was deleted for an odd reason. To the editor responsible, it would be best if you explained yourself, as well as why restore it for equally odd reasons. Unless it was a mistake of course. Deleting fairly well established articles is rather unusual policy.. - AVX 00:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted to get rid of some questionable diffs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocks in the UK

This section needs revising by someone who knows the history. It's implied that BT continue to block access, however I myself have been accessing 4chan and /b/ for the last seven months through BT broadband with no problems at all. Parjay 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been accessing /b/ through NTL/virgin media for a while... (82.31.151.236 15:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

I too am an NTL customer (although NTL is now Virgin Media), and can access /b/ (82.6.110.0 11:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

So, what about Fox News lulz?

http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=3894628&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1 --HanzoHattori 15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

that site is fake, right? 217.91.55.124 16:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. --HanzoHattori 17:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty funny. And the mom got a security system and a guard dog. Oh, come on: "What happens on the Internet, stays on the Internet."

If you were seeing if it is notable enough, I guess it could. However, 4chan doesn't have an "anonymous website branded with an 'i'." The only *chan site that has an /i/ is 420chan. So, it loses some of its notability there. DiamondDragon DESU 19:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of those screens are obviously 4chan, while others may be 420chan. --206.57.35.85 20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

They're talking about any site where there is anonymity, really. It would fit in nicely with the 4chan article simply because they're the biggest concentration of anonymous. In other news, it's on YouTube now: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UxWgRY1I_SI Metty 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I know; I've been refreshing the page just to see what other Anon/non-Anon had to say. Guess I'll slide it into the Anonymous section now.

This just has to be one of the most Epic wins for Anonymous. DiamondDragon DESU 03:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Lots of chans have /i/ boards for invasions. 7chan, to name a prominent one. And anyway, 4chan does in fact have an /i/, it's just for Oekaki.

Fox 11 Report

The section on the Fox 11 report is not supported whatsoever by the source provided - the video it references makes no mention of 4chan at all, and this passage in the article is nothing but the contributor's own take on who the "Anonymous" in the report is discussing. It should be removed until proof is found. Aceya 14:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ive removed it, it has nothing to do with 4chan whatsoever. It was in fact about 420chan, where the informant previously posted. Robnubis 16:33, 29 July 2007

But they showed the 4chan bomb threat posts on the report, didn't they? Parjay ► Talk 15:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be the case, but they certainly don't explicitly name 4chan. The link is tenuous at best - certainly not enough to warrant adding it to wikipedia. Even if they did, why should it be on here? A mention in a local news report? Nothing but pointless trivia. Aceya 15:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not trivia, it's notability. If 4chan is implicated in this Fox news report, then it should indeed be included on the article; there is nothing trivial about it. Parjay ► Talk 16:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not explicitly mentioned, it's only implicated. Which makes that not so much of a verifiable statement. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 17:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This article talks about Anonymous, which is a theme of this article. I think that if we were to talk about illegal activity happening on 4chan (such as truck detonation, performance enhancers and domestic terrorism), then this piece certainly could be mentioned, but not as a citation to be taken literally, seeing as it's just wrong. -InternetHateMachine

That section was also put in anonymous, the article. But it was removed because of being "related" to 4chan instead of anonymity itself. Where does this belong? 420chan is not "noticable" enough, it's a "different" anonymous, it's "not related" to 4chan. Maybe there should another section that discusses the other *chans. Maybe it's just "pointless trivia". The Conundrumer^T_C 22:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

People - watch the video. It doesn't name 4chan at all, only some vague concept about "Anonymous" which 4chan shares with a myriad of other sites. The only way you'd even know this was even remotely related to 4chan is if you were a regular of the site. If we're going to be adding little tidbits on to wikipedia pages every time Fox News does an investigation of a web phenomenon or on some other sensationalist garbage then this place is going to get full of crap. Maybe if this were some federal attorney investigating the site then it would be worthwhile, but at the moment all it is is some local tv network running filler material. Furthermore, Fox has gone to a lot of trouble to preserve the secret of the website's identity - obviously in the same way that one wouldn't publish the details of a website advocating hate speech or how to make bombs. This should be taken into consideration before we go claiming on here that 4chan is the site that the report is talking about - this so-called nexus of "domestic terrorists" Aceya 04:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The report is clearly refering to 4chan. Please see the page posted on the Slashdot main page which states, "The segment, which focuses mainly on users at 4chan, 7chan, and 420chan" --Android Mouse 05:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out a few things, first, in regards to the current discussion, quite a bit of the report did feature 4chan as mentioned, including some of the screenshots of an actual chan website (not to mention the photoshopped habbo picture which was a 4chan thing if I'm not mistaken. Also, 4chan, due to being the undisputibly largest *chan and birthplace of the anon we know today would clearly be the target, if not the focus of the report. Hell, givin the amount of journalism put into this they probably think 420chan is 4chan. And finally, the sentance "Oddly enough, 4chan and other sites are publicly viewable" should probably be changed to reflect the fact that any site that "Requires its users to remain Anonymous" couldn't possibly be hidden, as that would imply a login and password, with at least a number to identify the user. 24.222.133.66 05:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a citation to the Slashdot article and hopefully clarified that sentence a bit.

>>And finally, the sentance "Oddly enough, 4chan and other sites are publicly viewable" should probably be changed to reflect the fact that

Be bold. --Android Mouse 05:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bold? Without following that link I'm assuming your telling me-someone who just now created a wikipedia acount-to change a protected article. I really would, but my hands are tied. By the system, no less.Beran senae 05:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice the page was semi-protected. If you tell me how you'd like to see it changed I, or someone else can make the change for you until your account is able to edit it. --Android Mouse 05:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Givin that it's 3:00 AM here and that means I can't type for crap or think coherant thoughts I'm just pointing out the fact that the report included that fallancy in it's logic (among others) and since it's mentioned someone should complete it. personally I laughed as I watched them activally choose the name anonymous onscreen while saying the site forces all users to remain anonymous. Great lulz, if you will. Beran senae 06:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts here to get this cleaned up, Android Mouse, but a slashdot article doesn't really qualify as a legitimate source. It's just some sort of weak commentary on the original video which is vague enough as it is. Aceya 11:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The tone of the Fox News entry is odd. It seems to dismiss everything in the fox news peice as incorrect, just by use of quotations marks for every point used by fox. I'm removing it until someone can rewrite it in a non-dissmisve tone and relevant to 4chan. Without relevancy to 4chan, it should be added to the image board article or something...

Also i'd like to add that this doesnt fit under controversy, how is a news peice on a"Anonymous" controversial? There is no evidence linking this to 4chan, only 420chan.Robnubis

Please do not delete content to make a point. It is very much a controversy, as Fox is attempting to call them a group of hackers. In addition, it is one of *chan imageboard's first real news coverage, with the exception of the bomb scare. --L^ie! 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

there is no proof that that fox were reffering to 4chan, they were most likely referring to 420chan. its a pointless entry. Robnubis

It doesn't refer to anything by name, it just says "Anonymous" and "Secret Websites", and shows sites that are very clearly chan imageboards. They're probably referring to BOTH, although anything you say on the subject is just OR. --L^ie! 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My position is that it doesn't belong on here, but if it must, perhaps this will be of help. 4chan have now issued a response of sorts to the video: http://www.4chan.org/blog/ Perhaps this will do as a more credible source as it has been made by 4chan admins themselves and seems to at least acknowledge the report as being about them. Aceya 14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

4chan wanting to make a response to this does not implicate them. Also, L, it doesnt show "chan imageboards" it clearly shows 420chan, an individual imageboard. Its stupid to lump 4chan into this just because its an imageboard. While it is the most popular it should need to take the blame. The person interviewed who's "indetity" was hidden, was in fact a former poster of 420chan, and thats the site he hopes to take down via use of their /i/ board. It has no place on this article. also L [USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST] :Robnubis

Again, it says secret websites. They are probably referring to *chan boards in general, not any specific one. They showed four or five webpages, one was very clearly NOT a *chan board, and only one indicated which one it was. The mass opinion is that it's about 4chan though, so we should stick with that because it's clearly created more controversy about 4chan than anything else, even if that wasn't what FOX11 was talking about --L^ie! 16:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that it refers to 4chan and others besides just 420chan, I think the slashdot posting and 4chan's blog posting clearly demonstrates this. What do you have that would demonstrate otherwise? --Android Mouse 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the small piece of info I added has caused quite a stir. I sort of agree with those who don't believe it's to be here in a way; they have a few good points. However:

• The imageboard style mimics that of *chans and 4chan is the most known of the *chans (at least, in the U.S.).
• Also, since the "webpages" are of similar structure, they probably weren't really all separate pages (the popular people's belief in Fox's news' accuracy), but just different pages of one or two sites.
• Images of Habbo Hotel "raids" are commonly associated with 4chan (more specifically /b/).

If it actually were about 420chan or similar others, it would still apply to this article since 1) they don't have separate articles and 2) many happen to be "split-offs" from 4chan itself (though credible sources stating that probably don't exist even though it's "obvious"). I have the urge to email Fox themselves about what websites they've investigated in their report (or how many, if they don't specifically answer), but that probably wouldn't be credible and would count as OR, I think.

And L, of what part of the video did it show a website not of *chans? Was it MySpace? If so, that doesn't mean that it's not of 4chan (or *chans, for that matter); it was part of an attack on a Myspace user. DiamondDragon * 04:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The report mentioned the bomb threats. 2. The bomb threats are already attributed to 4chan and this is referenced in the article. Therefore, no discrete reference to 4chan is needed, there is a link between the two proven by the content of the news video and which requires no original research or "obviousness" to verify. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 04:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What wooty said, and DiamondDragon, I forget the exact part, but I remember seeing something that looked like a phpBB forum, done in black background, with yellow text. I'd have to look up the video again to be sure --Longing.... 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Found it - about 1:55-1:56.

I see. Sorry for the lengthy opinion. DiamondDragon DESU 07:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I've re edited again, at this stage i think the article is ok to stay in. It doesn't overtly blame 4chan and just says that Fox implies 4chan/420chan were the perpetrators. I'd still be in favour of it being removed completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robnubis (talk • contribs)

I'd exclude it simply because Fox did a horrible job on the story. It's funny as hell to those of us who know about 4chan and the other chans, but it's like including a tabloid report. If anything, we should wait for additional sources that criticizes the Fox report, so we can mention it without giving the report undue weight. At the same time, the little devil inside me says "eh, throw it in there, and laugh when someone believes it". -- Ned Scott 06:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, I believe the Fox report being flawed will be what actually makes this notable to mention. I just hope we can get some good sources for that. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it seems like there's some twisted logic going on here. We all pretty much agree that the coverage by fox is flawed and it's claims are spurious, it vaguely mentions 4chan at all and practically no one outside of the chan community even took notice of the show; and yet there's this attitude that we should include the report but qualify it by saying "oh yeah, but what they said was crap." This is not the way this site should be run. If a source is flawed and discredited and has no merit, then there is no reason for including it. I have yet to hear any reasons in favour of keeping it in besides some notion that because it was mentioned by a major news outlet it somehow deserves to be included in an encyclopedia. Trying to modify the section to being a dig at Fox's credentials is just as bad. I understand that this mention on the news was a big event for 4chan regulars, but every little thing in the real world that somehow relates to 4chan doesn't have to be included here. I mean, there was this recent drama when G4 mentioned an upcoming story about 4chan. Is that going to have a paragraph on here too? Aceya 15:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Its unlikely it will, but for some reason people have got it into their heads that because /b/tards at 4chan etc. thought the fox news report was funny, they believe it to be of factual importance. The fact is, it became what it was because it was hilarious, are we going to add Tay Zonday to Controversy? 4chan has been accused of being a lot worse than "hackers on steroids"

So how do we settle this? to be quite honest i think it should be removed, its stupid, it was only one LOCAL news station and they said nothing new, they just reported on the activities of *chan imageboards. needs to be removed asap. --Robnubis 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this could be settled by adding a new section about 4chan in the media? Otherwise, I agree with deleting it. Everything the report discusses (anonymous, raids, the bomb threat hoax), is mentioned elsewhere in the article. All we learn from that whole section is that one FOX affiliate did a story obliquely related to 4chan.

AotS report?

I've recently heard that G4's Attack of the Show is going to do an episode sometime today that will explain the "anonymous" of 4chan. I don't know if it's notable or not (I think it is), but I'm not sure since I don't know if AotS is highly viewed or not. Even more confusing, are there going to be some credible web sources on this? What does anyone think? DiamondDragon DESU 17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

EDIT:G4 copyright claim DiamondDragon DESU 19:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

G4 lied to get anon to watch their shitty show, it wuz a hoax. :(((((( 75.177.63.125 02:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but there was some confusion over whether it would be today or Thursday. Probably they changed their minds. I'll check the show on Thursday. DiamondDragon DESU 06:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

4chan's /b/ generally don't like it at all when their imageboard is mentioned in public, (official /b/ rules #1 and #2 state that you should never talk about it (like Fight Club)) this has therefore lead to a DDoS attack to G4tv.com. (which is actually going on as I write this.) Anonymous

Especially when on air, G4 says "OH HAY WERE BREAKING RULES 1 AND 2 OH NOES". That makes it even worse. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Official /b/ rules"?! According to the 4chan rules page, the only "official" rule for /b/ is "ZOMG NONE!!!1" -- there is no rule #2. 4chan was never some secret club until all this raid nonsense came about, and 4chan has never officially supported raids at all. In fact, you may well get banned for organizing one on 4chan.

Then what about Rule 34? Anyways...m00t is the one who doesn't support raids as he said during the Otakon panel. That in itself isn't a rule of /b/, but you'll still get banned for it as you said. InsaneZeroG 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Rules 1 and 2 are a reference to Fight Club. The "rules" were developed by Anonymous and are in no way endorsed by the mods or admins. Dpbjinc 00:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Coverage of other boards

Seeing as another user was incapable of posting this properly, there were edits to include /c/ in the article, but I doubt that it has gotten any news coverage. Right now, only six boards are mentioned on this page (mostly because they have over 1M posts), but is there any other board that is remotely notable in Wikipedia's guidelines?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the notability guideline doesn't cover the specifics of an article's content. So I don't think it is a question of notability, more of a question of is it original research? --Android Mouse 19:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

True. There's not much we can really state other than other boards exist.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Rules section of 4chan's Page includes a description of permitted content on each board. 0reteki 05:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Slashdot Article has a section on "Article Sections", and its pretty extensive. I agree that a list is pointless. How about we just add descriptions of boards with over a certain number of posts, say maybe 2M or 3M or whatever you think reflects significance of the board. 0reteki 05:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Notoriety

Maybe we could put a little more emphasis on how 4chan is notorious on the internet for being ruthless/apathetic/uncaring/disgusting? It's pretty much the first thing people think of/say when you mention 4chan. Maybe we could change the opening line to "notorious imageboard"?--87.194.98.220 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• A word like "notorious" is POV. It has to be sourced. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Surely the FOX 11 News video is justification of this?--87.194.98.220 19:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It seemed a little biased in my opinion, and it didn't actually indicate 4chan. InsaneZeroG 21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It shows continual screenshots of 4chan. Out of interest, what kind of a source would justify 'notorious'?--87.194.98.220 15:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It also shows screenshots of 420chan which may or may not also be the same screenshots. Also see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources InsaneZeroG 22:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Notoriety" wouldn't be something that would be used. Besides, the news report seems flawed (Fox 11's "accuracy"). A section about "Inappropriate content" would be viable though (about child and adult pornography and vulgar images mainly on /b/). DiamondDragon DESU 18:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we include this then? Would we need sources for the Child Porn? --87.194.98.220 12:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

The article overall fails to provide a very clear and concise picture of exactly what 4chan is, other than an internet message board. There's little info on it's significance to the overall internet culture, and the controversy section is at least half of the article, leading me to think that the primary purpose being served here is as a sounding board for 4chan user's complaints (hence the failure on criterion 4 of the GA criteria.

Some specific issues with this article include:

• The lead section is too short. It should adequately summarize the article and essentially be a mini-version of the article itself. Please review WP:LEAD for further information on this.
• There are two 'citation needed' tags in the article. While most of the information is reasonably well referenced, these tags tell me that some information is challenged, which fails the GA criteria.
• The article also has several citations to some of its own message board forum posts. Message board forums are not considered reliable sources. There is also a citation to a google search (which turns up blank, BTW), and should not be used as a reference.
• The 'origins' section is far too short. Consider changing the name of this section to 'history', and greatly expand it.
• The name of the 'layout' section does not seem to match the content of the section. When I see 'layout', I think it would describe the layout of the site, and it's general functionality. It seems to go into more detail on specific discussion boards. Consider renaming this section.
• Again, at least half of this article is contained in the 'controversy' section. Perhaps this is just because there's too little information in other sections, so this will be solved by expanding the article. But overall, criticism and controversy sections are largely discouraged in articles (see Wikipedia:Criticism).

I think that covers the major issues. But overall, this article is quite a way away from GA status. Good luck! Dr. Cash 05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with your assessment that the article is a haven for complaints about the site (as opposed to, say, Neopets controversy), and the usefulness of the criticism/controversy section (which contains the most reliably sourced and pertinent information about 4chan, unfortunately), thanks for the tips. I already changed Origins to History and perhaps that section should be merged into the lead. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 06:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What gets me is that some people flip out and revert like mad whenever people try to attribute memes to 4chan, because there's no way to prove it, so how on Earth can this article possibly prove any claims to notability? 4chan itself is, apparently, not a valid source about 4chan, so how would one say certain things originated there? I remember a small edit war over the LOLcats/Caturday thing, because some stickler wouldn't accept that anything funny could come from 4chan without ten other pages supporting the position. And as a small point, archive.org doesn't archive 4chan due to the porny bits. Howa0082 14:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Internet Hate Machine

I looked for the term "internet hate machine", but I got redirected to this article. Why? 80.121.54.40 09:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly did you expect to find? --Android Mouse 09:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

An explanation what this term exactly means. 195.64.3.178 13:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Amendment: And what the connection to 4chan is. 195.64.3.178 13:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess someone thought it would be a good joke. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of 4chan based Memes redirect here, rather improperly. InsaneZeroG 01:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

wiki doesnt like having pages for memes, i read sumwhar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.5.237 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, "Internet hate machine" refers to a report on L.A.'s Fox News 11 about "anonymous", where they said "they attack innocent people, like an Internet hate machine". The whole thing is in 4chan's blog. It was one of several things from that report that the users of /b/ found amusing. Of course, things that the users of a message board think are funny is more or less unattributable to reliable sources. On a related note, it looks like the redirect was speedily deleted as nonsense. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 02:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)