Talk:4chan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 4chan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 14, 2009.


/pol/ Board's Pranking of Shia Lebeouf's "He Will Not Divide Us" Art Exhibit[edit]

The users of 4chan have garnered some attention over the past few weeks for pulling a prank on Lebeouf's "He Will Not Divide Us" exhibit, which has been moved three times due to the pranksters' persistent harassment of the project. In the latest event, the users managed to track down, steal, and replace a white flag emblazoned with the message "He Will Not Divide Us" that Shia had raised less than 48 hours earlier, in exchange for a MAGA hat. Given the social media and press coverage of the occurrence, it seems to be one of the most recent and noteworthy pranks to come out of the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paw of Death (talkcontribs) 08:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC) [1] [2] [3]

References

Some coverage, but probably not enough for a mention in the article, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 Westminster attack[edit]

4chan has been linked to the 2017 Westminster attack in this news article. It is speculative at the moment and the regulars discussing this on 4chan are not convinced that it is linked. It isn't as clear as the potential link in the Marcel Hesse case in the thread above.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

2015 Wilfrid Laurier University threat and 2014 terrorism arrest[edit]

Does the arrest of someone for posting on 4chan of what was deemed a credible threat by the FBI warrant a brief mention within the article within the 'Threats of violence' section? Or would it not qualify since there was no genuine threat involved? (Although currently similar cases are mentioned.) Alcherin (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Separately, what about the arrest of a Jersey man pretending to be part of ISIS on /int/? Alcherin (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Jersey incident was discussed at Talk:4chan/Archive_16#Sheik_Suleman_al-Britani:. Due to the fact that the man had mental health issues and received a non-custodial sentence, it probably isn't fair or necessary to mention this in the article. There are various incidents where people have posted threats on 4chan, but it would run into problems with WP:NOTNEWS unless there is significant long term notability. It was claimed initially that the Umpqua Community College shooting was predicted in a 4chan post, but this never came to anything and the claim is now seen as dubious. The Wilfrid Laurier University threat may well have been a hoax, so I'm not sure if it worth mentioning in the article, as it would give the impression that the incident was more significant than it was.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
However, the article at present contains a short paragraph on a 2009 Swedish threat (St Eskils Gymnasium) that also came to nothing, with the suspect also being released after saying it was a joke, not unlike the Wilfrid Laurier case. Does this somehow have long-term notability? Alcherin (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
People are posting threats as trolling pranks all the time on 4chan, often in obtuse language. There are often bomb hoax threats against airlines on Twitter, and it is almost invariably a hoax because if you were going to blow up a plane, you wouldn't be boasting about it on Twitter beforehand, like these idiots.[1][2] This is a fairly common event on Twitter, but for some reason the media regards 4chan hoaxes and pranks as more dangerous. The Wilfrid Laurier University incident is interesting because the British man who was arrested did not actually make the threat, but reposted on Twitter something that he had seen on 4chan (lesson: what happens on 4chan stays on 4chan). This is similar to the Twitter joke trial. The regulars on 4chan are so laid back about hoax threats that they initially regarded the Marcel Hesse incident (see above) as yet another hoax, but it wasn't. The Wilfrid Laurier University incident may be worth mentioning in the article because it highlight's 4chan's culture of hoax threats which are not meant to be taken seriously (known as grinch posting), but which could easily lead to an arrest if other people read the threat and did not know about 4chan's culture.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hwndu and Timmy[edit]

I can't edit this in but Hwndu should be a part of this article for sure.

And for the Timmy thing, I'm pretty sure that was on /b/ not pol. Same goes for the child porn. I may be wrong though. Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems a little biased[edit]

Why is 4chan under Politically Incorrect? also you guys should mention the attack on Tumblr where tumblr users went to "war" against 4chan and 4chan responded by literally crushing them.

Also gamergate is biased too. At least mention how gamers viewed Zoe Quinn's and the feminists' allegations as false, misunderstood, and sexist/racist against them for advocating the "privelaged white male manbaby who is a sex addict/racist" and how the sjws attempted to use their positive media attention to censor the gaming community — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian2bp5 (talkcontribs) 05:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

4chan's best known boards are /b/ and /pol/, which is short for "politically incorrect". The users delight in saying things and posting images that will infuriate the Left. The article does not say that 4chan is politically incorrect, though.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes /pol/ is politically incorrect, and /b/ stands for random. These are the 2 most well know boards. There are also boards for origami, cooking, tv and film, diy, anime of all sorts, sports, music, literature etc. Yet you say 4chan is politically incorrect cause of 1 of its 2 main boards are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.13.114.103 (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that, and neither does the article. When the news media covers 4chan, it is almost invariably in the context of some controversy involving /b/ or /pol/. This does tend to skew the sourcing in the article, creating a situation where the various other boards (Technology, Food & Cooking, Papercraft & Origami etc) get relegated to the sidelines. I wonder if the mainstream media has ever covered these boards in any detail.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to summarise the bias of this article:

The editors have judged the entirety of 4chan by a misconception of the content of ONE board; /pol/. They go on to throw their silly buzzwords around, while including quotes from left-wing mainstream media outlets, while delibrately not including quotes from media outlets of individuals who see no problem with 4chan.

Don't judge a book by it's cover, especially when you haven't even seen the cover. Mitch01themonkey (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

There is some recent news coverage of 4chan here and it cites an academic research paper published in 2017, titled Kek, Cucks, and God Emperor Trump: A Measurement Study of 4chan’s Politically Incorrect Forum and Its Effects on the Web. This goes down the now familiar road of assuming that /b/ and /pol/ are all that anyone needs to know about 4chan.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm the editor who wrote and maintains the /pol/ section. I'd like to address a few of the issues raised above.

/pol/ as "politically incorrect"

This is mentioned simply because "Politically Incorrect" is the board's actual title. Similarly, the /b/ section mentions /b/'s title.

Undue weight granted to /pol/

Sections about other boards are allowed if they pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which requires mention by independent, third-party sources. If you can find such sources discussing, say, /ck/ or /o/, I welcome you to add the respective sections. The /pol/ section is largely self-contained and was added in August 2015 - much of the rest of the article was written long before then.

Bias of /pol/ section

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; any sources cited must be reliable. To the best of my knowledge, the /pol/ section's content satisfies both of these criteria. I wrote about notable /pol/-related events in a neutral manner while citing reliable sources. Other editors are welcome to edit the section with additional content that meets the above guidelines.

Cheers,

3hunna (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2017: Gamergate Summary[edit]

Gamergate is relevant as a harassment campaign, not as a donation campaign which created a video game character (see for example the Gamergate Wikipedia article; the intro doesn't mention either).

I propose to add the following after the first sentence:

The false allegations were followed by a harassment campaign against several women in the video game industry, organized by 4chan users.[1]

I also propose to delete the next two sentences about donations and video game characters as they are about minor details which are not relevant for a short summary. Even the sources for it only mention it in passing, while focusing on the harassment campaign. Zukorrom (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Your request for removal would also be a request to remove properly cited material. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)