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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Featured article FA  Quality: FA-Class
 Mid  Importance: Mid
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  Quality: FA-Class
 Top  Importance: Top

Rape Capital of the Internet[edit]

Alright, this needs to stop. While this discussion initially began as a borderline valid topic, it's fallen into meaningless discussion and unsubtle baiting. May I remind all editors and new visitors that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and that talk pages are not intended for general discussion on a topic, as they are for discussing improvements for the article only. If you would like to discuss how the internet is a sexual wild west that needs to be tamed, there are better places for it than here. --benlisquareTCE 10:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There needs to be a section on the sexual violence as it is both the source and the Mecca of internet violence. Any one who opposes will have rape threats sent to them and the site glorifies and encourages violence against women. If you don's believe me then look at at the page of Anita Sarkeesian (no I am not a feminist, I think they are just as sexist as the perverted trolls) but there is a problem that needs to be addressed and it is the biggest stick in the mud and that is saying a lot from a site that is like a failed state.-- (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

While this is definitely a hot-button issue right now, stating that a website utilized by hundreds of thousands of people all as one collective hivemind commits actions that support violence against women is absolutely asinine. Further, there are certainly no reliable sources that support taking one particular side of this extremely polarizing and ongoing incident. Saimouer (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC}

Remember it is from that site that Rule 34 was invented and has been controversial from day one, which includes child pornography of both boys and girls.-- (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect, "Rule 34" does not refer to underage pornography, it is instead the concept (for the lack of a better term) that pornography on every single subject exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euphoria42 (talkcontribs) 01:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
That is factually incorrect. Child pornography is not permitted on 4chan. As stated by their (rather extensive) ruleset: "You will not upload, post, discuss, request, or link to anything that violates local or United States law." If this doesn't cover it enough, NSFW boards have this additional, far more specific rule: "Absolutely no underage content (under 18) of any sort. Violators will be issued permanent bans." [1] Beyond this, the phrase "Rape capital of the internet" is a highly editorialized statement that violates Wikipedia's neutral POV policy. There has never been a case of "rape" occurring on 4chan. Further, Rule 34, however distasteful, does not refer to underage pornography. Rule 34, as stated and sourced in Wikipedia's Rule 34 article [2] is a phenomenon by which pornography for every conceivable topic exists. It is an anecdote which is sometimes applied to drawings of TV, video game, and movie characters by pornographic artists. Saimouer (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ask anyone about the site, they are certain to say something negative about the site without balancing it out with anything positive. It started off with the sexualisation of anime girls that are under aged and anyone from any other site who threatens rape admits to be invading from 4chan.-- (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What is "internet violence" supposed to mean? Google gives me the following definitions for "violence":

  • behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

"Internet violence" of that sort cannot possibly exist; it is impossible to apply physical force via the Internet.

  • strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.

There is nothing "natural" about the Internet, and while the Internet can be used to convey emotions, it has no emotion of its own.

  • the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

Again, physical force is an impossibility.

I am forced to conclude that by "internet violence" we are talking about the forcefulness of emotion expressed on the Internet. Aside from being rather over-the-top rhetoric for such a thing, it seems to me that it could equally well describe, say, the reaction (conveyed via the Internet) to a rape threat taken seriously. (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Watch AngryJoeShow with the episode Top 10 Gaming Controversies of 2013! at number 3, he mentions the rape and death threats to Anita Sarkessian and he said are from 4chan.-- (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously 4chan and all the porn on the internet needs to go. It is the root for all the rape threats, homophobic slurs and politically incorrect bigotry. I don't care if it takes ten years, the internet is like the wild west and needs to be tamed like the wild west. There is nothing redeemable about the site, nothing and it only supports the patriarchy with an iron fist, encourages violence against women and children and loves blaming the victim just for challenging any stereotype ever known to exist. -- (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"primordial soup-stains ... digital plaguepits"[edit]

Could we get a better quote than Tom Mendelsohn's "as with most of the worst things on the internet, this whole palaver can be traced back to the primordial soup-stains 4chan and Reddit, two digital plaguepits of particularly virulent woman-hatred"? The partisan tone and language does not seem befitting of an encyclopedia. The article is somewhat of an opinion piece - it is under Independent Voices - Comment. Mendelsohn is an online student editor. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you have a better quote, or for that matter, a balancing quote, please suggest it. But I would oppose simply deleting it. I suppose that 4chan itself has a "tone" that would seem out of place at, let's say, Encyclopedia Britannica, but the quote describes 4chan, and 4chan of course is the subject of this page. I think it is actually a pretty mainstream opinion of 4chan, and we do not delete content merely because it is critical. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian[edit]

Special criticism of rape threats should be mentioned for Feminist Frequency. Trolls have attacked her on tumbler, threatening her of murder, forced prostitution and rape. Its not enougth that they antagonise Youtube, they must harass feminist on their own site for not wanting to be sex slaves.-- (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

4chan is not the sole originator of all trolls and harassment on the internet. Unless you have sources for the entirety/majority of 4chans several hundred thousand members all agreeing in their desire to make her a "sex slave"? This is baseless accusations at best. IrohSei (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Then if that is the case, the site's trolling center should be coupled with Reddit and yes, I was referring to the Gamergate controversy.-- (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"False accusations" against Zoe Quinn[edit]

Change to accusations. If you're trying to be bias you're doing a good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well discussed already. — Strongjam (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your link goes nowhere (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion has since been moved into the archives. Old revision of Talk:4chan/Archive 16 , See the Nature of accusations section. — Strongjam (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sheik Suleman al-Britani:[edit]

A 4chan user is in the news again. Should be added. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Although this involves 4chan, it probably doesn't have enough long term notability to be mentioned.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow. I remember that guy, and I always had the feeling that one day or another he'd get a doorknock from the authorities. He used to spend every single day on /int/ telling everyone that all kufar needed to be beheaded, and that Britain belonged to the prophet. But yeah, I agree with Ianmacm, this might not really have much of a lasting notability, and it seems like a much smaller scale event compared to other things mentioned within the article (e.g. threats of school shootings, etc). --benlisquareTCE 01:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
"Sheik Suleman al-Britani" (not his real name btw) is a good example of the sort of person who spends all day on 4chan spouting racial nonsense, but 18 months probation is not notable enough for a mention when there are many more serious incidents involving extremism. The incident was related to Asperger syndrome and the judge did not believe that genuine extremist threats were involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Some more detail here. Most of this is obvious sh1tposting, but he was charged with possessing a magazine that promotes terrorism and publishing bomb-making instructions online. He apparently did this on 22 September 2014 (and no, you can't read any details in the very small screenshot).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Also covered here. I think it's notable. It was also covered by the BBC and Jersey news when he was arrested 6 months ago. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm 50-50 about whether this is notable enough to mention, because it does show that there are limits even on 4chan, and that the police will become involved if a line is crossed. The non-custodial sentence and the fact that the person involved had mental health issues is why I am not sure that this needs to be added.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is an amusing (to me) and troublesome (to society) incident, but it's not particularly notable. It's just another person getting in legal trouble for chan stupidity. If we do add it, I'd recommend it be in a single sentence in the Child pornography and other arrests subsection. (As an aside, this subsection may need to be renamed to something like "Arrests related to 4chan" or simply "Arrests".) Regarding his mental health issues, I'm not particularly keen on including that. Since it's apparently relative to the case, maybe add another sentence detailing why. For example:

In March 2015, 21-year-old Mark Alexander Harding from Jersey was given 18 months probation for offences involving the possession of material that promotes terrorism and the publishing of instructions on how to create a bomb online. Due to the fact that he has Asperger syndrome, the court decided that his obsession with terrorism was autistic in nature, so he received a non-custodial sentence.

Some citations could then be added at the end. Anything more is unnecessary, in my opinion. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 06:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I think there are some WP:BLPNAME issues with naming the man involved, as although it did appear in news stories, the rules are stricter in Wikipedia articles. If a person without mental health issues had done this, they would probably have gone to prison, and it would have been notable enough to mention.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
What of all the other names in the section? Apologies for my ignorance, but why are they allowed? Is this because they were actually arrested and charged, as compared to this individual? If we can't name the person, and he was technically not charged with a crime, I guess it isn't worthwhile or notable enough to mention. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
My position on this is that the non-custodial sentence means that it isn't notable enough for a mention as it would have issues with WP:10YT and WP:DUE. Naming a person in an article requires more than a passing notability, which is something the 21-year-old man from Jersey does not have.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. I was just making sure we're making the right decision. I guess it'll remain out, then. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 07:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Moot He Is Gone[edit]

Shouldn't we change this article to reflex current ownership, now that Chris "Mooty-pattootie" Poole is no longer the owner and operator? We have an article on Kim DotCom neé Kimberly Schmitzwe could link in....rather than encourage nostalgic vandals to remind us that Moot is forever Admin Maximus Emeritus in their cold shriveled hearts, we could simply mention that he started the site, enshrining him as "founder and creator" in our InfoBox, rather than current owner, and update our information to reflect current reality and current owner. (Source:

- (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If Moot is still active on the site, he lurks, and shares the hallowed handle of "Anonymous" with the majority of users, from the fairest to the most foul.

Everyone is, indeed, finally out of the Poole.