Talk:Pwn

Archival content

Rough consensus to keep as is. VfD notice removed. Deletion debate archived below. -- Cecropia 01:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

• Overwrought dictionary definition of a gamer culture in-joke. Rebrane 08:40, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Leet -- Cyrius|&#9998 12:06, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Add links to Cant, Jargon, Argot & Leet. --Davout 13:39, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Leet. Exploding Boy 13:43, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for now. It's not strictly a part of Leet language. --Johnleemk 14:06, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with Leet and redirect. Oddly, this article makes it look like Leet is a subtopic of Pwn... Fredrik 15:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • More elaborate motivation why this does not need its own article: Pwn is already covered quite well in Leet (including meaning and origin). The few things that are missing can be added easily. The note of being subject to flame wars is absolutely unimportant, since flamewars on obscure Internet forums erupt all the time, about all kinds of subjects. What remains is a description of what Leet is, and that is, well, redundant.Fredrik 00:39, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Everyking 00:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. - Fennec 00:47, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, entertaining and well-written, and a rather more detailed writeup than that of any of the other words described in the Leet article. --Stormie 01:50, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Leet. -Sean 20:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's pretty good. Pteron 22:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Cribcage 05:37, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Jeffy 15:39, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Fredrik is right, we should merge this with Leet, but keep the article and put a link to it on leet

---

I understand that the deletion debate has already occurred, but I wanted to stress that I believe this article should be kept as-is (seperate from Leet). The word is distinctly different, though used by the same culture. On DavisWiki.org I was able to provide this link as an explaination of the term, which would have otherwise gone misunderstood or lost in the sea of Leet. Leet is also more hax0r-culture than gamer culture, which pwned is. --Philip Neustrom

---

VERY similar to the free dictionary definition http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Pwn3d Chicken or the egg? Metastable 23:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The fine print at the bottom of that says they got it from here. Goplat 23:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They get everything from here...Dustin Asby 07:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Under Etymology, the simple-typo theory (certainly the only seriously-held theory in my speech community) is listed twice. That's odd. Also, I would propose that "chizzown" comes from "chown" (which comes from the general proliferation of words that end in "own", with some help from unix), by way of the same process that leads to "bizznatches" in the "hizzouse"; the gratuitous insertion of 'z' and necessary vowels, from black English. I decline to edit this myself, since I'm hesitant about the potential for controversy in tracing etymology without extensive research. --jholman 12:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

zwn

I removed the "rhymes with zwn" from pronunciation. Google and Dictionary.com have nothing on zwn as a word. It's not a very helpful pronunciation guide if there's no indication how to pronounce zwn.—Rory ☺ 00:07, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree wit this point and in general, I really like this article. I think that this is the kind of thing that makes wikipedia really good. It is clearly documenting and explaining generic information that will take years to make it into any written encyclopedia. --Jpittman 15:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You've not only been pwned, you've been zwned! :) Rickyrab 00:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) (signed after I logged in)

In usage by gamers, I have seen several sightings of the use of 'zwned' in MMROPG's, referring to the tactic of changing between game maps or 'zones' to escape or avoid player-vs-player combat. I am hesitant to add this usage though without more research or support from other writers first. -- Anon

I also believe the pronounciation "pawn" or "paun" should be removed. When is the last time a 'W' has made an 'ah' sound? -- Dustin

• Well, the pronunciation of W is "wuh", which is a short A sound. Pronounced exactly by the letter, pwn is "p-wahned", and if you say it fast enough it becomes "pawned" (not "puh-ahned").
• How is "wuh" a short A sound? I say it should rhyme with OWN because that is precisely what word it came from. At worst, "pwun". anon 71.87.113.191 11:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Since when was English pronunciation rational? The letter R is pronounced "ister" in the word "Mr". (And here in the English-English-speaking world, "pawn" does not have an "ah" sound.) The question is, how do people who use "pwn" pronounce it? --121.72.83.151 03:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Warcraft

"Finally, one other story reports that in the game Starcraft (Alternatively Warcraft), [...]"

I removed the "(Alternatively Warcraft)" part. Does this mean the story is also told of Warcraft? Or that Warcraft is an alternative name for Starcraft (not true but seemingly implied)?

I heard the same story about Warcraft. Two entries on UrbanDictionary seem to agree. More Googling seems to suggest this too, it also confirms that pwn was used before this. Philip Nilsson 20:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've put it back in. —Rory ☺ 20:53, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

The most common theory that I've heard is pwn originating from a War Craft map. I've never heard of it coming from Star Craft. Are you sure you have that right? Phoenix Hacker

Since the specific game mentioned seems to be a subject of off-and-on edit wars, I've decided to change the story to acknowledge the fact that various people claim that the game in question is Warcraft, Warcraft II, or Starcraft. My personal belief is the most likely candidate is WC2, because custom maps for the original WC were very rare (WC2 was the first game in the series to include a map editor) and I think "pwn" existed before "Starcraft" came out. But without any evidence actually confirming or refuting any of these, I think we should acknowledge all three possibilities. Colin M. 02:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, Pwnage comes in many forms. you can Pwn, or Pown on a game, but usually an online game. most used in Counterstrike and the word PWN is affiliated to the word Noob, or n00b or Nub or just plain suckage in any online game.

I remember seeing 'pwned' as a typo in original Warcraft. If I recall correctly, it appeared at the bottom of the screen when you beat a certain level or something. It became popular because it was a typo that Blizzard missed. I'll have to go back and play it again to see if I can find it. Waterboy matt 06:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• If you can get a screenshot of this, or better a video capture, that would be enough evidence. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-3 06:22

No, this constitutes original research. PStrait 03:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that would constitute original research, as it would be widely available information that anyone can find with a minimum of effort. WoW becomes, then, a source which can be cited with the photograph. That's what I think. David 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Providing the image can be found and cited, it's valid. Heliomance 18:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

cleanup

Added {{cleanup}} as the additions of more and more etymology and variations are making a quite good article less so. mordemur 12:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pooned

Recently on the MMORPG Runescape I have seen it often used in the form "Pooned", and even more recent I even saw it on the MMORPG Rose Online. This could just be a small group of people originated in Runescape, or even a completely different word in it's own, so rather than edit yet I'm wondering if anyone else has seen evidence of this? Jimbobsween 04:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I've use pooned/pooning/poonage and I've never played those games and, in fact, don't personally know anyone who has so I can't really comment on it's meaning for those communities. I just use it because that's how I pronounce pwnd when talking IRL.

Also, on the Kingdom of Loathing radio show 120 Minutes With Jick and Mr. Skullhead, "pooned" is used quite often. This is where I picked up the habit of pronouncing it. This seems to be a web RPG thing. --Eventide 13:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ive seen this word many times. On Halo, Runescape, Gunbound, and many more. I think its just people that decide that poon looks way cooler than pwn. --TenThousandFists25 March 2006

Poon is not related to pwn. It was an early MMORPG word for a player, or player character, to indicate there's nothing particularly special about that person (you could easily pwn a poon). It's not connected with the word toon either, as it seemed to emerge from Asian-influenced games. It may have its origins in an Asian language. The first players I saw using poon were PvPers. "Pooned" would most likely be a corruption of pwn and poon, due to someone misunderstanding the use of poon. Tale 22:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Poon is popular in Runescape because Jagex has a nazi chat filter that blocks "pw". 216.61.238.76 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference for the omniscient Weyes

This is a pure waste of my time, but okay, since there are people who don't know what Google is:

• Pwn3d 38 300 results. Just an example of what you've been removing. E|t
• Al Capwned
  • It's been used 174 times in total, or hardly at all. --W(t)
• Post-Pwned
  • Lots of hits for someone with the nickname post-pwned and a couple of posts that are pwned. --W(t)
• Pwnz0r
  • Exactly 11 unique hits. --W(t)
• Tehpwnzor
  • 174 hits, nearly all for people with that username. --W(t)
• Pwnt

N00bzorz:another newbie way of saying n00bzzzz

• • None of these seem to have anything to do with the word in this context. --W(t)
    • Yeah. You're right. I'm pretty sure you checked all 26 000+ results too (irony). Anyway, that just about rendered your argument useless. E|t
• Pizwn3d
  • 4 hits. --W(t)
• WTFpwned 7 040 hits

Look, I don't have time, nor will to list up ever single one of them. Use Google. Google is your friend. And stop reverting. This is a good dictionary for words like these: Qwned EliasAlucard|Talk 16:22, 16 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Urban dictionary is a terrible source since every possible neologism is added to it by people wanting to push "their" word. --W(t) 14:33, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Bad argument. You think pwn is a real word? It's as much fake as any other word people are "pushing in the urban" dictionary, and the derivate words in this article. Words such as pwnz0r are pretty standard. I'm reverting back now. If you cannot prove that the usage of these words do not occur, then stop reverting. These derivate words aren't supposed to be established standards in the gaming vernacular. That's the reason why there are such few hits on some of them. Stop reverting. You're destroying the article when you're removing knowledge from it.

Even Micro$oft has acknowledged the existence of the derivative word pwn3d which you so brilliantly removed [1]. So far, I've given a lot more proof about you being wrong. So I'm asking you kindly: stop reverting.

EliasAlucard|Talk 17:10, 16 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

OMGWTFBBQ! :) — Rickyrab | Talk 02:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I hardly think that "pwn3d" counts as a derivative word, since it's just a, er, normal word fed through a leetspeak filter to change the 'e' into a '3'. As for the rest of that list, it's really starting to get ridiculous. Most of those words simply aren't commonly used (and in many cases, not even remotely so) in the parlance of the culture which spawned the word "pwn". See Wikipedia:Neologism. --Dachannien 21:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I also think the list of derivative words is a bit ridiculous. Some derivative that is used a couple times on some internet forum is not encyclopedic knowledge. In particular, I've commented out "tehpwnzriate", "klwned", "paedwned", "oregapwned", "owntehpwnsord", as I couldn't find any google hits for it that weren't Wikipedia and clones. Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. If anyone wants to find a suitable third-party reference for any of these, feel free to add them back. Other words I found dubious: pwnaggio (1 non-Wikipedia hit), chizowned (1 hit), and pwnacity (2 hits). Colin M. 22:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, "modus pwnened" gets no non-wikipedia hits on Google; the variant "modus pwnens" does get hits that all seem to be some guy's username on Slashdot and other web forums. Colin M. 00:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I see there's a request for an RfC, could both parties give some explanation of the issue? Please be brief! Dan100 (Talk) 20:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Pwned as a contraction

It is my understanding that the word "pwned" is a constraction of "owned" and ":p" which is a smiley wiggling his tongue at someone. I saw the word ":pwned" before "pwned" in online FPS.

• I've never heard that before, myself. - Stoph 03:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• It is my dog's understanding that some burglars accidentally leave their pizza behind after they have robbed me. --Tysto 03:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• No way. I heard this term used in the hacker/cracking scene WAY before smileys were commonplace.

• As the article already the 'pwn' was probably the product of someone mistyping 'own', which seems likely given that O and P are right next to each other on the keyboard. So I highly doubt your you explanation. --DuO 07:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Tyso.

The last edit

removing all that info is ridiculous. Why is it misinformation? because you said so? Lockeownzj00 17:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

rv'ed the section. Just because it's 'not supported by evidence' is not a reason to delete a whole section. If such a section should be deleted, further motivation should be given on the talk page.

Husky 23:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable puns, variants, etc

There were quite a lot of non-notable puns and variants that I removed. As with LOL, the smilies or any other neologism, this article risks turning into a running archive of every "word I just invented" or "word I just heard my best friend use" to cross a computer screen. In order to avoid that, we need to keep a close eye on how wide-spread each version is, and in many cases, how different versions can be collapsed into a rule (e.g. "pwn variant" + "hax0r variant" = "pwnzer", "pwnzor", "pwnz0r", "pwnx0r", etc., etc. There is no need to list the variants if we understand the rule). -Harmil 16:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Good work Harmil. With just a little bit more work we could remove the 'cleaned up' message in the future

Husky 19:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

someone revert plz --Skuld^{‡ insult} 19:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

WHAT PWNED REALLY MEANS

IDK how this got out of hand...PWNED MEANS EXACTLY THE FOLLOWING...ever since CS came out in 1999

IT means: Powerfuly Owned

                 P - owerfuly + (owned-o) = PWNED

NOw dont disagree with me, i have been playign cs before people who run around shouting "I OWN YOU"!

And kiddies, this game is rated 'M' for a reason, so little kids dont run around saying LEET and NUB or NOOB, or I PWNED UR TEAM. IF you know someone who says this in life, and smack them.

While it's lovely that in these uncertain times you have so much conviction in your statements, do you have a source or anything? Foolish Mortal 12:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, why would anyone remove the O from OWNED in the first place?

"owned" just looks cooler with a little "|" attached to the "o" to make it look like "p". The "p" in "pwned" is really an "o", but it just has a cool looking line on it.

EDIT - you are incorrect. Note the proximity of the p key to the o key on your keyboard. its obviously a typo.

...No.

"pwned" originated from "owned" in a CS game where the typo was made, substituting the "o" for a "p". It caught on, and now is considered traditional l33t, and the "e" has been replaced with "3" in an even more l33t form of the word

Well, CS was certainly the first place I encountered pwned in common use and the typo explanation is the one that I keep coming back to, primarily because it's the only one that doesn't require a tortuous explanation. I'm really not sure that all of the Phracked stuff should be in the article, that sounds like pure coincidence to me. Sourcing something like this seems near impossible, maybe the article should focus more on the use and less on the etymology? Or at least keep the etymology section necessarily vague.

thats so retarded. noob...read the article. It's right.

Sources, plz?

While it's inherently difficult to source things in online gaming culture, statements like "adopted by practically all online gaming communities" are just inexcusable. Anyone watching this page want to take a crack at it? nae'blis _(talk) 20:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with your first statement. There is, as far as I'm aware, no definitive work on the topic of video game sub-culture slang. Do you have suggestions? At this point, I think the best source for such a statement would be the direct experience of a wide range of Wikipedia editors who have not reverted such statemets (I would certainly agree that gamers of all stripes that I have known use the term). -Harmil 10:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

And most of the people I know who play computer games (who are generally over 21, and not playing in LAN parties/i-cafes) don't use it. YMMV, but that's why I'm objecting to the overgeneralization. Also, I want a source on the "those bears totally pwned those hunters" comment, which seems forced, to say the least. nae'blis _(talk) 19:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will try to find some decent sources for this. I agree that some of the info here should be removed BUT realise that Wikipedia probably has the most extensive parcel of info on "pwned" on the Internet now. The real issue is seperating what's needed and accurate and what's not.--Mike 02:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Derivative words

I renamed this section "Notable derivative words" to emphasize that this is not the place to add every derivative of "pwn" you can possibly think of. Otherwise the page would end up with many dozens (maybe even hundreds) or rarely-used "derivatives". My suggestion is that only commonly-used, well-established words should be listed in this section. "Commonly-used" means at least a couple hundred independent Google hits. "Well-established" means it's been been in wide use for at least a couple months. "Derivative words" that do not pass these two tests should not be included in this article (but feel free to start a List of words derived from pwn if you really feel that every use of pwn needs to be noted somewhere). See also Internet slang and List of internet slang. Colin M. 23:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the derivative words section?

Seriously, it's gone. Why was it removed? Chad Okere dec 24th, 2005

Looks like it was removed by some random IP about a month ago. They also deleted the pronunciation stuff.

Other trivia

In version of Hamlet released by the Nova 2010 Shakespeare project, which will produce modern-verse versions of William Shakespeare's plays, Laertes shouts "Thou are pwnt!" after striking the titular protagonist with a poisoned blade.

---

Really? I can't find any evidence for this. Trollderella 22:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I never thought of that. The translation of Shakspeare into t337. Truly a contractdiction in terms. Kind of like Instant Julia Child.

The refrence for this is: [[2]] Nov 10, 2005 Actually the refrence is No-Effort. Its a flash movie. © Copyright Chris Coutts 1999-2004 and its REALLY REALLY BAD.

Origin of Pwn

After being around online gaming, and communications for decades: I would speculate that Pwn, is word of t337 speek, and t337 came from warez and piracy. Its common usage now is in PK(PlayerKiller)fights on online games. The z at the end of warez, probibly was a play on words like smileys :P, using ASCII character sets. ( `>8-<-< = Robin Hood ) The use of ASCII character sets for art was popular on BBSs in the 1980s. Which probibly originated with the use of ASCII, as graphics for the computer game Rogue '@'. Rogue was developed to test TermCapabilities( TermCap ). The only thing I remember that resembled ASCII art before Rogue, would be a rotating line, with 4 ASCII characters '-', '\','|' and '/'. and pictures printed ( large scale multiple sheets ) from line printers.

I would say that of any word in t337 speak, pwn is probibly as important as the rest of the language, with the exception of the word 'warez'.

WTF is "teet" speak? Don't you mean 1337?

( SHOOT ME. I looked for warez on wikiPedia...! ) ( warez is NOT a contraction of warehouse! Noooo )

You should have been there...but mabye not. --Artoftransformation 12:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The origin is first of pwned. pwn is a reverse derivation of that. It comes from "pk" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_versus_player#Player_killing

The act of abbreviating it as "pk" caused it to change sense and meaning. Creating the infinitive "to pk" (to player-kill - ie to kill another player's character in the game). This is to differentiate between killing player controlled characters and computer controlled ones (npcs, mobs, whatever.) So, if you "mob-ripped" (rip starting from R.I.P, and turning into a verb) it meant you died from a mob, rather than being pk'ed, which meant that you died from another player's character.

By abbreviating in this way, new abbreviations tend to appear, like being p-looted (another player takes your character's equipment), to being p-owned (which we are discussing here).

As for p-owned, if you blinked you would have missed its morphology. it went from p-owned to pwned rather quickly. The easy typo of own to pwn, and its similarity to other words (like pawn - in the sense of being "used". With "use", in this case, giving a slight semantic meaning as f-ed - "I used you like a b-h" - to - "I f-ed you up" - to - "I pwned you"), among other things, gave it nearly immediate widespread usage. It's a very aggressive statement with the speaker attempting to forcibly imply dominance. And much stronger than the simple "I beat you" of competition.

"poon" or "p00n" are variations of this, but also of the word "harpoon". I p00ned you = I speared you. (note the phallic references throughout all.)

I hope this helps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.144.181 (talk • contribs)

• Did you make that up just now... or did it take some time? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-27 07:54

It looks like a lot more time went into than was necessary, but all the same, thanks for the good read.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am in complete agreement as to the source coming from player-versus-player conflict. MUDs that allow player-versus-player fighting are called "PK" muds. The information stored about a player is a player file, or "pfile". Killing another player is called a player kill, or "pkill". Killing something in a fashion so overwhelming as to go beyond the connotation of "kill" was referred to as "owning" it. Using the same derivation of the other words, "owning" was for mobiles or non-player charcacters, and "powning" was for players. As in "he didn't just pkill him, he powned him". This also relates to pronunciation, in that the "p" is an abbreviation for player, so it should be pronounced as "p-owned".

The point of it was to hopefully update/add to the main "pwn" article. : ) I was/am presuming that changes are posted here, for approval into the main article. I can reformat/edit the above text in several ways, or whatever, just let me know.

I've been "online" since the mid to late 70s in many different aspects/ways. Just discovering how voluminous wikipedia is, and starting to get hooked : )

PS-the pronunciation I've typically heard (in person, on voice chat, etc) is /pee-ohnd/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.144.181 (talk • contribs)

we've been having a long standing issue with verifiability on this article. While for the most part I think that WP:NOR and WP:CITE are being taken a little to seriously here, and that WP:IAR should be considered to a small extent, I am starting to agree with BRIAN more with respect to verifying as much of the information as possible before posting it. It might be of interest for you to create an account also, its free, easy, provides added anonyminity(sp?), and makes it easier to track/have discussions about edits. Also, if you have a signifigant interest in editing this article, you might want to take a quick breeze over the rest of this talk page, noting some of the more recent verifiability and source discussions. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait, i thought it was from a misspelling they accidentally coded into warcraft 1 or something... Bonus Onus 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And that there is exactly the problem. Everyone and their mother thinks they know the origin of pwn, there are almost as many stories about it as there are articles in Wikipedia. It's impossible to know which one is true. Heliomance 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that the typo theory is such a popular one? The proximity-of-the-o-and-the-p-keys argument is people thinking about this in entirely the wrong way, and it stinks of a theory after the fact AND it seems to me like it's more popular with the people who are confused and unfamiliar with the useage of "pwn" in general, whereas the people who are accustomed to the word find other theories more acceptable.

The truth is, pwned became popular because people find it funny. Even if the word was originally misspelled, the more accurate way of describing the origin of pwned would be speculation/sourced-infomation on the period of its usage and its rise in popularity. For all we know many words and meanings may be originally attributed to random and trite events, but there would never be any way of verifying it regardless.Mythiran 04:40, 12 Feb 2007

I think its because ppl missspelled own, since p is next to the o... - 69.248.175.25 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Am I the only person who thinks the picture for this page makes no sense? Apparently someone was Pwned, but the picture doesn't illustrate that fact in any sense I can think of.--Mihoshi 20:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the picture issue James 10:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bah!

Too bad this article didn't get pwned in the vfd. :P The Wookieepedian 19:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

OOOoo, pwned. --Shadow Puppet 20:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Theories of origination

I would propose that as a criterion for a theory's inclusion in the "Theories of origination" section of the article, that theory must have the verifiable support of at least two distinct people. I believe that this would reduce the size of that section substantially. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible Source of Pwnd in Starcraft

A friend of mine (and a quite reliable source) said that the phrase "pwnd" was coined by himself and a few friends in Starcraft in 1998. It was used as a term in online play, particularly in sniper, to describe the action of patrolling areas for enemies to gain an advantage. Since the hotkey for patrol is the letter "P" and you would own someone by using it, the two were put together as patrol own- in essence, pown. After a while, it worked its way down to simply pwn, which is what is used today.
If anyone is wondering, the people who credit themselves with this are named in the Starcraft community as gotunks2 and lukefrenz.
I believe that this is quite reliable myself, as I do have two sources (one of which doesn't even live in the same state and I do not know, so I can say it's not a scam), and the other descriptions of the origin (especially the Warcraft designer's theory) don't contain any sources or links to interviews or the like. And if the story about the designer is true, then there would have to be some written proof somewhere.
- Canadian_nazl ^{(talk - contribs)} 07:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many several theories regarding the origin, and it would be a mistake to cite one source as more reliable over any other without specific citable evidence. I am going to edit accordingly, if anyone objects please revert, but only if you are willing to defend your reversion.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I just found this on IMDB - http://imdb.com/title/tt0217061/trivia "... Starcraft first made use of the word "pwned", which is popular with Internet users. It came about when a map designer misspelled the word. Then the game was published with the error. When a player had been beaten, the message "______ has been pwned" appeared..." 82.60.131.198 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pwned

Pwned gained fame from PlanetQuake. Back in 98 they published an article with pwned in as a test to see if the sheep would adopt it too, to try and fit in. Obviously it originally began as a typo, but Planetquake is responsible for its widespread use.

The only 'evidence' I can give is from old PQ mailbags where they'd already ran it into the ground by mid 99: 1 2 3 If you can track down Lowtax or the original PQ squad I'm sure they would confirm it. Trampled

I'm sure too that they would confirm their own apparent founding of the word. Unfortunately this just fits in with the fundamental idea that as an internet meme, its true ancestry is likely untraceably. As far as I'm concerned, and I'm pretty sure everyone else will see it the same way, all the various explanations hold equally without indisputable evidence of one over another. This falls right in line with the histories of various fads, they can only be traced to a limited set of possibilities, rarely anything more.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would be proud of starting off such an idiotic trend. Most of the PQ staff hated the word and regretted publish ing it. If you can find any earlier reference to it on a popular website I'd love to see it, but I was around at that time and I am pretty certain that is the first time I'd heard it. Trampled

Unfortunately those links you provided dont work, and as it has no verifiability over anything else as a theory, it should remain as such. Any proof would also have to be conclusive, not just an example of how it seemed to you at the time.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Exapmle: Anarchy, he got qwned by flow

I was unable to find any proof of this, but I distinctly recall this exploding after PQ had an article with "pwned" in it. This was definitely some time in '98. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.224.252 (talk • contribs)

Like I said, its just another theory behind an internet meme. No one took notice of a reason to document its development, and now as a result everyone and their mother wants to claim they know what is going on. All these little theories that keep popping up are already encompassed in the primary possibilities made in the article, which I'm afraid are as close as we're going to get. Most likely, "pwn" occured as a typo in several places before it became popular, possibly originating from all these sources. Its been known to happen.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to vouch for this one as well. The PlanetQuake article was the first time I had seen the word used intentionally. As I recall, the authors were complaining about the prevalence of 'owned' and it's various derivatives and facetiously presented 'pweened' as an alternative. The subsequent abuse by the PQ community certainly helped popularize and cement it's usage. The consensus here seems to be that it evolved directly from a typo of 'owned'. My hypothesis is that the various permutations such as 'pwn' and 'pwned' evolved (devolved?) from the original 'pweened', which was contrived by the article's authors and inspired by what was at the time an unheralded typo. If one believes this etymology, the proper pronunciation of the word is 'pweened' and not 'pohned'; pwn and pwned are contractions/variations of 'pweened'. All of this is of course hard to verify now that the original article is seemingly impossible to find. However, Lowtax (Webmaster @ www.somethingawful.com) and his sites have been responsible for various ridiculous things propagating across the internet, look no further than allyourbase and karnov. It doesn't surprise me that he would also be a key factor here.

The fad on PQ died down and many new gamers started to come online. I think we had people that saw the word being used but had never read this article / been involved in the geeky online computer gaming scene at the time. PlanetQuake/Bluesnews/Shugashack were THE online FPS community in 1998 as Quake and Quake 2 dominated until the CS betas really gathered steam and brought FPS's to a larger audience which wasn't around for / could care less about the origin of 'pwned' - by then it was just common trash talk and the inuitive explanation for it IS that it's simply a typo of 'pwned', similar to 'pron' and 'porn'. The problem with intuition in this case is that it also suggests that it's pronounced 'pohned', which if you buy my explanation is like hearing nails on chalkboard.

Of course, I know I'm wrong when I pronounce 'ghibs' instead of 'jibs' and I do it anyway ;).--68.149.110.205 12:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that pq was probly responsible for the widespread use of "pwned" today but they did not invent it. i was using it while playind the origanal warcraft back in 1994, before the pq article. It was such a common unintentional typo that i and all warcraft players began to use it intentionally kind of as a joke. If you notice the "p" and the "o" are tight next to eachother on the keyboard. now of course we dont use the term jokingly anymore.

I can also vouch for the PQ article, although I belive I read it on PlanetFortress. The article was talking specifically about a clan match in which a player had accidently misstyped pwned instead of owned, and supposedly the players found it funny enough that it disrupted the match. This is understandable considering how widespread the usage of "owned" had become at this time, and was viewed as a term used by the "kiddies" etc... If I recall correctly one of the 2 clans involved in the match was Gothic Terror. It may be possible to track down someone from them.

I remember it distinctly coming from PQ also. I've been a part of many gaming communities. Before it appeared in Starcraft vernacular and other FPS games, I saw it on PQ. I strongly disbelieve it came from "PK" in RPGs. falsedef 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Verification

There are no verifiable or reputable references for this article; therefore adhering to Wikipedia policy just like the user "Viriditas", I must target this article for deletion because it is "original research" and cannot be verified. If you have questions about this decision, please contact Viriditas. Haizum 06:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not blank Wikipedia articles. And, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. --Viriditas 06:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You just proved my point exactly. Thanks! Haizum 06:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT. --Viriditas 06:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please dont create seperate Re: sections everytime you reply. Please leave it in the existing sections using appropriate indentation like everyone else. Second, this article does not qualify under original research. See HERE. While that section does not completely encompass the scope of this article, it would be an appropriate guideline. As for the theories regarding the orgigins section, so far every theory I've seen there sports some large form of following and consensus, and absolutely none have been given documentable proof over another as either first use or even occuring at all. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Exapmle: Anarchy, he got qwned by flow

Pronunciation

There seems to be an issue with this. If anyone isn't sure what pronounciations are used, especially most commonly, see for yourself. Go onto a CS server, or any other game with voicechat, or hang around teamspeak channels. You will definitely see that the current statements regarding pronounciation in the article are correct.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I still say that it's totally pronounced 'pyooned'. That's just my two cents.--Javguerre

Out of all of the pronunciations, how would that one make any sense? Where is the 'y' sound coming from? Avengerx 20:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it can reasonably be pronounced as 'pewned' (Yes, pew + -ned). I also believe that there must be at least one other person who agrees. --Javguerre

thats the problem with an article like this. Too many people want to put in "their two cents" and no one wants to realistically look at the big picture. A word is pronounced exactly how society pronounces it. No one's going to argue that dog is pronounced "doog" because everyone knows better. Someone probably pronounces it that way but the majority of society doesn't. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The most common way of pronouncing "pwn" is pohn. Basicly say "own", but put a "p" in front of it. Thanks for adding the pronunciation on the main article James 10:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested to hear that "poon" has something going for it, in that it is consistent with the Welsh language, in which "w" is a vowel pronounced "oo". Hurukan 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm always pawned, personally. Secretlondon 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The New "Pwn'd" Picture

I scratched the old "pwn" picture and put in this new one. I think this one defines "pwn" more clearly James 10:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Crap theories" and factual accuracy

First, I'd like to call into question your concept of "crap theories". Just because you do not agree with something does not mean that it is crap, and it is definitely not proper to delete them outright. Second, how exactly do you propose anyone gets citations for any of these theories. There is no clear way of determining the roots, and this is reflected in the phrasing of the theories. There are no independent research studies concerning the eytomology of the term 'PWN', and this is reflected in the article. Thus, we must include a variety of possible reasons. Avengerx 17:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess adminstrators don't have to read discussion pages, because they are automatically right. Avengerx 17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

They are random claims made by 1-edit anons on this talk page. Deciding to stick them in the article goes against WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-31 17:19

Also, it is ridiculous supposition (as well as original research) to claim that because it may be difficult or impossible to pin down the source of the term, any old suggestion by anyone should be allowed in the article, whether or not it is based on anything factual or verifiable. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-31 17:22

"If you want to adhere strictly to the no original research policy, then we must delete the entire article. ALL of this article is supposition and original research. In fact, half of wikipedia would have to be deleted, JUST because we don't have a "specialist" in all of these subjects who can do "academic" research. Yet again, another seagull Wikipedian, who would rather tag up an article before fixing it. Avengerx 17:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you denying what I have said in my reply, or ignoring it? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-31 18:10

In your reply, you mention factual accuracy and verification are the major issues that you are attempting to tackle. If that is what you are trying to say and demonstrate, then what I am saying is that it is impossible to verify ANY of the text within the article. And, in response to what you said before (in the part of your post that you deleted), could tacking on any source to the statements within the article make them any more solid? Instead of having a well trimmed article, with a variety of possible explanations, you have decided to request citations that cannot possibly exist in proper format, and to delete things rather than work on them. Because of your status as an administrator, you have already flaunted your ability to delete things out nothing more than your will by citing them as 'crap'. While I would love to help make this article better, I know that anything I do will be over-ridden by your authority. And to that I concede, though with downtrodden sentiment. P.S. I believe that I addressed what you said clearly, in both this post and my previous one. If there is a failure in our communications, please address it directly so that I may clarify myself. Avengerx 20:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's something to consider. What if some of these theories have shown themselves in repeated mention on the internet, which while normally is not a good source of verifiablity, most definitely IS when the subject in question is at is core an internet topic. In which case you can do a google search on pwn, or pistol own, and find tons of associations with the two. This isn't just some 1 edit anon theory either. This theory; as someone who has been playing FPS games for a long time, and talking on internet and gamer related messageboards; I can say has been in existence for a LONG time, and is held by a signifigant portion of the users of the term. It is a perfectly plausible and likely origination of the word "pwn" and is definitely one of its most common interpretations. If that is the only reason against its mention in the article than perhaps the origin section shoudl be renamed "origin and use" or "origins and proliferation"--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 11:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• The reason it is not included is because it is not based on anything verifiable. If you would like to find the most reliable sources for the information, sources that didn't base their information off of this Wikipedia article, then we can use them in the article as references. The Starcraft reference needs only a screenshot of the typo. This should be simple enough to verify. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-1 14:18

Also, if you are still thinking that the pronounciation needs citation. How is one supposed to cite what could in easily be considered reasonable knowledge. If you regularly use speakeasy or other voicechat while playing online games, it becomes as plain as day which pronounciations are used regularly.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 11:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so we document how different voicechat programs pronounce the term, but the most likely pronounciation will rhyme with own, since own is the most likely origin of the term. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-3 08:17

It seems you are thinking of programs that convert text to voice. I was intending to refer to programs that simply transfer voice signals, simmilar to VIOP, in videogames. Many like Counter-Strike have their own, there is the Xbox Live system if you're familliar with it at all, and then there is [3]. I was referring to ways that players themselves actually pronounced the words, over a wide geographical area, since it is easy to have players from all over the country and even internationally on the same voice channel or server.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Earliest occurrence

Can anyone find anything earlier than this post (August 1999)? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 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". — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pawn

The article is missing the connection to the word pawn (as in the weakest and lowest raking chess piece) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.213.190 (talk • contribs)

Its already been discussed and is not notable. It is essentially a contrived connection made after the fact by chess fans.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 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

http://www.expectnothing.com/?page=story&post=9531#Comments Read the news story, then someone made a comment "pwned". This wiki article claims it wants sources. 199.197.135.1 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the person misspelled "owned". :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 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 textfiles.com. 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge

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. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 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. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 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. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 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. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 06:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        Please see my comment in the section below.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 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 (talk • contribs) .
      • 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 05:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep

leave it as it is, it is a very scolarly definiton for a simple term as pwn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.196.64 (talk • contribs)

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 Alfador^Talk|@ 02:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I thought it was referring to that old AFD at the top of the talk page. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-12 02:32

I guess thats a possibility too. Either way... aw whatever.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Origins"

"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)

Pawn=pwn?

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. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 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 Alfador^Talk|@ 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 70.187.205.60 (talk • contribs) .

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)

QWERTYs ?

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)

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)

Theory

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)

Strange

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" --132.203.76.248 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.

138.243.228.52 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!
138.243.228.52 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to remove all the "e"'s :(

Debate Forum Restored

It appears coneslayer and a few other contributors are intent on reverting the pwned usage to ONLY gaming use. I do not consider myself an authority on gaming, nor do I care about whatever the word means in gaming circles. It has evolved, as language does, to become a word in common use in other places, debate forums being one where it now occurs regularly. I don't particularly care if the purists want to keep the word somehow restricted to gaming, but the fact is, Wikipedia does not serve as a final authority for the gaming community to their exclusion of all others. Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be comprehensive. Eliminating an entry because it doesn't conform to your vision of reality serves no purpose for the general public, it limits knowledge, it gives a foreshortened view of the world, and it lessens the experience that is Wikipedia, for other users.

I don't want some kind of flame war over the inclusion of pwned as a debate tool, but I will not sit idly by and watch someone irresponsibly attempt to "burn the books" either. If you don't like the way I posted the explanation of pwned as a debate tool, edit the section, but PLEASE, stop reverting this article to some neolithic purist gamer pissing ground where gaming and ONLY gaming references are allowed. i4 07:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa...could you tone done the venom a little? I will be removing the section you added, not because I necessarily disagree, but because you provided no sources for it. The article starts out by saying, "a term used primarily in the Internet gaming culture", not solely in gaming culture. Whether it's in a game or on a forum, the term still refers to soundly defeating an opponent. --Onorem 11:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are incorrect. I provided 2 sources for my statement that it is used in debate in the fashion in which I posted. It was coneslayer who reverted the page and eradicated the source references. If you go back and look at the original version prior to his 10/23/06 reversion, you'll see 2 sources linking directly to the useage in debate as examples.

Unfortunately, since the usage is newer, there is not a plethera of discussion or reference available as there would be for a usage going back ten decades or so. That's the price of documenting new trends.

As someone who has participated heavily on that particular forum, wouldn't my own experience qualify as a "knowledgable source"? DUH!. It's neither the only debate forum where it's used nor the one where it's used most often in that fashion either. What does it matter if the term is or WAS primarily used in gaming? As I stated earlier, language is constantly evolving. I'm sorry you refuse to recognise the usage as it has evolved but that doesn't make it untrue.

More links to examples of usage;

pwned:

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=342869&page=5&highlight=pwned%21 see post #82 http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=383177&page=2&highlight=pwned%21 see post #26 http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=37474&t=341492&highlight=pwned%21 see post #11

OWNED!:

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=248005&page=2&highlight=pwned+owned see post #29-#31 for discussion on the merits http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=120439&page=3&highlight=pwned+owned see posts #41 - #54 for comparatives

Can we put this silly debate over sourcing aside now?

My statements are not filled with "venom" as you suggested. While I don't game, I have nothing in particular against those who do. What I AM aware of is the fact gamers consider themselves a "seperate culture" in the world of the internet and sometimes exhibit some rather proprietory behaviors. This is an example of such. Whether YOU happen to agree with my entry or not, you have no right to simply dismiss it without checking the references. THAT is elitist behavior. Perhaps you should check yourself, before assigning labels to others.

I pose this question. What harm is done by having the usage included?

I pose a second question. If the usage, as stated, fails to grow in use or dies away in the future, what is to prevent someone from coming in next year or in a couple years and then removing or changing the reference to one of being archaic and no longer in use?

Failure to thrive didn't make the dinosaurs any less real. Your refusal to recognise the usage is analogous to saying because there are no T-Rexes in the 21st century, we refuse to acknowledge that any dinosaurs ever existed.

Again, I refer you to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is to be a COMPREHENSIVE source, not an exclusionary one. Stop playing the "pwned!" game with it. If this were a debate, a SINGLE usage would already confer upon me a "pwned!" over you since I can and have already linked to the usage in current practice. It exists, you lose AND are supporting a known falsehood.

Should you continue to wage this battle, you run the risk of being OWNED! - as someone who refuses to see the reality placed before their eyes in hard print and defends a position that is plain for anyone to see is not only wrong...but you are being willfully stubborn in continuing to perpetrate a falsehood.

I am reverting to my original posting. i4 19:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In my eyes, this section is vastly over-long and mostly irrelevant. If I understand you correctly, you are adding this information to demonstrate that pwn is not used solely in gaming circles any more. That's fine, though the article already says this, much more concisely, in the early lines like "The term has become ubiquitous in Internet circles and is often used outside of gaming contexts." The context of the usage is the same: to point out that somebody has been beaten. Rufous 01:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I provided 2 sources for my statement that it is used in debate in the fashion in which I posted.

No. You provided 2 links to a messageboard...not reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, specifically the section on reliable sources. It states, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."

As someone who has participated heavily on that particular forum, wouldn't my own experience qualify as a "knowledgable source"? DUH!.

You may be a knowledgable source, but you are not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

What does it matter if the term is or WAS primarily used in gaming? As I stated earlier, language is constantly evolving. I'm sorry you refuse to recognise the usage as it has evolved but that doesn't make it untrue.

Are you seriously asking why the origins of the term matter for this article? /boggle. I don't refuse to recognize the evolved usage. I refuse the idea that the article needs 5 paragraphs to document how Pwned is used on a specific forum.

Can we put this silly debate over sourcing aside now?

No. The debate can continue until you actually provide a reliable source. You can link a million times to "The Podium" and it won't make a difference.

This is an example of such. Whether YOU happen to agree with my entry or not, you have no right to simply dismiss it without checking the references. THAT is elitist behavior. Perhaps you should check yourself, before assigning labels to others.

Please assume good faith. My edits have absolutely nothing to do with my feeling I'm some part of some separate culture. I would appreciate if you didn't accuse me of having other motives. And what labels exactly did I assign to anyone?

What harm is done by having the usage included?

Whether or not it's harmful really isn't important.

Again, I refer you to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is to be a COMPREHENSIVE source, not an exclusionary one. Stop playing the "pwned!" game with it. If this were a debate, a SINGLE usage would already confer upon me a "pwned!" over you since I can and have already linked to the usage in current practice. It exists, you lose AND are supporting a known falsehood.

I think if you'd take some time to read up on Wikipedia policies, you'd understand why I removed your section. You'd also understand that I haven't been in any danger of being "pwned". (/roll eyes) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not everything that exists deserves to be here. Verifiability, not truth, is what is important. --Onorem 03:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Pwned. 68.156.179.110 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I noticed a few things that look a lot like the page has been vandalized, so I'm gonna be bold and fix it. ... one of these days, maybe I'll even create an account. XD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.192.124.97 (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Nevermind, someone else got to it first. 63.192.124.97 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC) the same unsigned user

Lots of vandalism especially on weekends. Just like leet and 1337 and owned. -- ThreeDee912 22:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Welsh Pronunciation

If you look up Crwth, a Welsh instrument, the 'w' is pronounced like 'oo', as in tooth. From this, it can be said that the 'w' is the vowel in the word, and so should be pronounced 'poon'.

161.225.129.111 13:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, if there were some reason to believe that pwn was Welsh. -- Coneslayer

Degrees of pwnage

Was there a particular reason why the section on degrees of pwnage was removed?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heliomance (talk • contribs) 13:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC). >_> there was a gap of about five seconds between me editing and realising I forgot to sign it. Heliomance 13:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it was unsourced and looked purely like original research. --Onorem 13:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Heliomance 13:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the whole article is technically original research. While the section as it stood probably wasn't great, a section on how it can be modified to produce extra emphasis would probably be good. Or would that better go on the leet page? Heliomance 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the whole article is technically original research. I do believe that there is still too much original research in the article. That would indicate that the article needs more cleanup. It would not be an excuse for adding more original research, either here or at leet. --Onorem 13:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The very nature of the subject is such that it is extremely difficult to have it as anything other than original research as there are no citable sources. Personally, I think Wikipedia:IAR is appropriate.Heliomance 14:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is difficult to find good sources for the page, but I don't think that means we should ignore rules regarding verifiability and original research. I would personally rather see the entire page deleted then have it opened up for every 1337 gamer to come in and leave their own random interpretations of the term. If the next guy's definition of the degrees of pwnage differ from your version, who's gets to stay? --Onorem 14:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You have a valid point. In that case I may create a humour page for various leet conjugations and suchlike, and put the old section there as it was amusing. Heliomance 19:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Its from World of Warcraft

In one of the quests a NPC says " Great Job, you pwned him ", It was an error meant to type own instead of pwn.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.137.231 (talk • contribs)

Can you find a reliable source that agrees that's the origin? --Onorem 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that's the origin of the word.. WoW was released in 2004 and in my experience, the word was in use before that too. Of course, when the word became popular it started to appear in many places.. - Simeon87 12:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Pwn is almost universally agreed to have been around long before WoW. It would still be good to put that example into the article, albeit not as an origin story, if you could take a screenshot of the NPC saying that. Heliomance 14:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

-I agree.

Pwned in other languages

This article is available in Italian, Portuguese and Norweigan. Does that mean that Italians, Portuguese and Norweigans pwn each other too? --Candy-Panda 09:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

English is a fashionable language; hence Italian, Portuguese, and Norwegian gamers with a rudimentary command of English probably adopted this word as fashionable jargon. English gamers use über, a German word, as fashionable jargon, too. As for whether those gamers pwn one another, of course: gaming crosses language barriers, and so do silly words. Rintrah 11:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

As it stands, the article's expanation of the term is obscure, as it assumes that all readers will know about U.S. adolescent slang. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the term is gamer slang—equally likely to be used by someone from England, Australia, or Canada. Its origin is in own, and is most fervently used in the 1337 vernacular. The former gives it its meaning; the latter gives it a life of its own. It's a pointless word. Little brats use it for their trivial amusement; see the article's edit history for examples. Rintrah 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

People need to stop randomly debating this... look, its a lot older than most of you seem to realize, and some of the earlier purported and documented cases are not even from gaming, in fact they are from other internet usages such as IRC. Lets actually stop debating the original use of the word because it won't be found. Also, lets keep the self serving snide remarks out of this if we will? Thanks. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Xbox Live Rumor

Isn't it a rumor that pwn originated as a typo on xbox live?-TheVofSteel

Although pinpointing the origin has proven to be difficult, there is no question that the term originated well before xbox live existed. Rumors don't belong here unless they've been reported on by multiple reliable sources. --Onorem 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Xbox live???? idiot, everyone knows it came into existence during the Quake era.

Letter P as rotated cursive letter O

I got the impression somewhere that the p was a 13375p34k corruption of the letter o derived from the resemblance of a cursive letter o that has both a long lead in and a short tail on top and that is then rotated counterclockwise 90 degrees. Mrcaseyj 08:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that gamers particularly care about cursive script. Again, unless you can find and cite reliable sources, this is just a rumour and not a very likely one at that. Heliomance 15:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

i know alot of people who prononce it like Pawn, like the chess piece.

yeah the pronce section dosen't say anything about that, and its been a growing proble amungst the nerds at my high school lunch table. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.61.214.72 (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, "[pən]" is pretty similar to "pawn" in pronunciation. Admittedly, the IPA symbols don't give very clear indications of what the pronunciations are. Anyone feel like going through the IPA page there and giving perhaps rhyming words or at least real-English phonetic equivalents? Nique talk 03:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Heliomance 13:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is urban dictionary refrenced?

If Wikipedia does not allow IMDB to be used as a refrence, urban dictionary should probably not be used either. Does anyone else have comments? - Hairchrm 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Pwn came from pawn in chess

Hey

I was told that Pwn came from being check mated by a pawn in chess. This explains why it is used in a taunting manner, since being mated by a pawn is humiliating.

Anyone else heard this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.50.170.14 (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

My friends actually started using the term before I heard of it online. We were playing chess and my friend took my queen with a pawn. We of course had heard of Owned, and when he said I got pawned it kinda stuck as an inside joke. Was funny to see it was more universal than I knew.

122.148.193.244 07:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PWN Stands For Something

A magazine from way back in time called Phrack World News —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.88.165.151 (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, PWN stands for Phrack World News, and yes, that has been cited. However, there is no appearance of PWN being used as a verb in reference to the publication, as claimed in this Wikipedia article. So, I have inserted a citation needed" after the offending sentence. The referenced external link about Master Locks does not support the conclusion that PWN is the origin of "pwn" as a verb, so I have removed it. kostmo 04:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Coincidental similarity!

It has struck me that a Welsh slang term for beating someone up and fighting is 'pwno'. This is obviously not the origin of the term used today, but 'pwned' does indeed sound like an English play on the Welsh word.

Ycymro 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

alternate origin of "pwnage"

i was told that pwnage originally referred to a contraction of the words "pure ownage", this may have some relation to the "powerful ownage" contraction suggested earlier.

Pwnd or pwnt?

Would you say pwnd or pwnt? Like "I pwnd you" or "I pwnt you." Or is it pwned? Pwnet? Does anyone know? Jedi_feline | Talk 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Often pwned or pwn'd. - Slow Graffiti 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

hmm another theory...

It could possibly evolved in part from "debt bondage", if you read that article it talks about "pawnage" and "peonage", aka calling someone a "peon" for not having a backbone. 70.176.230.110 21:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary

This article has a clone on Wiktionary (same section titles). Indeed, I think the place for this expression is on Wiktionary, not here. I don't understand why there is this page on Wikipedia. Grasyop ^✉ 11:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete this!

Pwn, and the synonym owned, doesn't deserve to be deleted. It would be like as if you're into deleting all leetspeak stuff here in Wikipedia. The word, in my opinion, although it's not the one used in proper/formal speech, is notable enough to be in here, so deleting it is unnecessary... Blake Gripling 11:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

PWN IS ON THE 2007 LIST OF BANNED WORDS, NOT 2006. SOMEONE CHANGE THIS NOW.

Please don't use ALL CAPS in the discussion boards, dude; and sign your post using four tildes, as in ~~~~.

STFU N00B

Language Log

Language Log has a blog entry on the pronunciation of pwn. -- Coneslayer 12:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)