Talk:4chan/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Contents

Death Hoaxes

I removed this because it's significance is highly dubious. Posting phony death hoaxes on /b/ is an ongoing thing, and has probably been done for any number of high profile celebrities. The ones that actually take off, though, like Kanye and Jeff Goldblum, don't gain any more steam from /b/ as they do somewhere else. The Kanye hoax wasn't just on 4chan, but it was commented on heavilly there (leading some to believe that "Oh, it's 4chan, they must have started it.") It's usually the product of a group of people that simultaniously work together to spread the info, citing each other as proof, where the hivemind takes over from there.

If the death hoaxes were huge enough to actually be reported by today's ridiculous media without fact-checking (as they often do not do), then that would be worth adding to the celebrity-in-question's page, rather than trying to pin it to a specific source (which is 100% uncitable). Gpia7r (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

allegations of racism by 4chan

After some googling I've found many respectable sources that provide a point of view about 4chan as a website that permits racist commentary and hate speech, but instead, not enough reference to this topic is found in the curent revision of the article, there are many sources out there confirming this, besides KTTV's report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.211.251 (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Taken from the Wikipedia article on Racism: "Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race". So, racism is defined as what may or may not be seen as offensive from one race to another. Since 4Chan's posting format is default Anonymous posting, there is really no way to determine if the individuals making said racist remarks are indeed of a different race, or simply taking an example, an (Insert Race of Choice) individual poking fun at themselves/others of their race. Furthermore, nothing posted on 4chan is intended to be taken at face value. "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact." -Random imageboard header disclaimer. In summary, this really isn't the place for soapbox race-baiting, and you'll have one heck of an uphill battle proving anything more than dark humor, which the article already covers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.212.4 (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with the anon editor on this one. There have been attempts to sensationalize racist material on 4chan, notably Fox News but these attempts are just that, attempts to sensationalize a non-issue. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a non-issue with Fox, I think. EVERYTHING is destroying 'Murrica. --King Öomie 19:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
how do you know 4chan posters don't mean it when they input racist humor? yes, the whole imageboard protects on the facade of a work of fiction, but is obvious they acknowledge all racist remarks as true irl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.211.72 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that the IQ of the average 4chan poster is well below 70 I think they do indeed mean it and actually find it funny. -- Caligasti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.58.84 (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

not relevent, there is racist humor on 4chan, particularly /b/, but the tone of /b/ is and always has promoted the posting of shocking and/or offensive material. Find me a reliable, secondary source discussing racism on 4chan and names 4chan by name, and we can discuss adding it into the article. But an op-ed or scare piece by fox news isn't going to cut it. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Even though sources such as fox news have run articles, their "journalism" was roundly laughed at by the internet as a whole. Nobody who visits 4chan, particularly /b/, should take seriously anything that is said there. I would have to question the reliability of any source that wasn't able to figure that out. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
You have no clue what you're talking about. I can tell you that there is no racism on /b/...Ever. Anything that may seem like racism is nothing more than hilarious. rzrscm (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

SomethingAwful.com advertising

Why is the line about Moot being a former member of "SomethingAwful.com" included in the article? The fact is trivia, at best, and trivia is to be avoided. I'm sure it was added by someone trying to promote the site, and it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.22.236 (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't prove that it isn't trivia but in my opinion it is relevent to showing where the community came from. I really doubt it is a plug for somethingawful. please WP:AGF. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The moderators of 4chan were always familiar with SomethingAwful-style humour, so I'm guessing most of them were members at some point. [1] Ottre 18:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The original 4chan moderators were all permabanned users from the Something Awful anime forum, myself included. But I am not aware that any media source has recorded this information. Shii (tock) 19:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how reliable it is, but I found this. Also, moot says so on the faq, so yeah... Throwaway85 (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How did Jarrad Willis die?

Seems odd that this is missing. I've been searching for the answer but have yet to yield anything. Is there any information on the cause of death? Krushia (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

He became an hero. Meowy 17:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

^ lulz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.234.225 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Another school shooting threat

On November 24, 2009 at 13:46 Estonian time, a 18-year old Estonian boy posted a threat on 4chan to carry on a school shooting in the Commercial High-School of Tartu (et:Tartu Kommertsgümnaasium), a high school in Tartu, Estonia. The boy was arrested on the following day. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

On November 25 Tartu Kommertsgümnaasium was closed to students as a safety precaution because the boy who posted the threat was not yet caught. On the same day two other high-schools in Tartu received bomb threats[10][11]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.29.65 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

English sources, please? I can't really comment on it more without even being able to read the articles, and translators aren't reliable enough for this.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
http://balticreports.com/?p=5367 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.10.218 (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Chanology

Can anyone find a reliable source that correctly attributes chanology as starting at 711chan and migrating to 4chan, rather than the other way around as the article currently implies? I haven't had much luck with google. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedobear?

I'm not trolling but there's only two mentions of Pedobear on WP and no proper explanation. It might be a popular meme but it passed me by. --Alastair Rae (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to find a reliable source saying that Pedobear started at 4chan if you wanted to include it in the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe he was asking for an explanation, based on WP only having two mentions of the word itself and no details. As an unsourced (and likely not entirely uninformed) response: Pedobear refers to an image of a "strutting" bear that is used on the internet in various linkages to pedophilia or child pornography. This can be a direct link where it is used in matters containing child pornography, in situations where the topic is however many steps removed, or in an ironic sense. It evokes the image of a big creepy walking teddybear who likes children a little too much. This is probably more explanation than is (a) relevant (b) wise to have tainting an edit to WP under my username, but it's also a few hairs more polite than saying "google it", which i recommend you do (carefully). --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for describing Pedobear in the least funny way possible. Alastair: Just look it up on ED. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Says the person who misinterpreted the original question entirely and instead used the phrase "reliable sources". :P --Human.v2.0 (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
if there's anything a discussion of 4chan demands, it's reliable sources. ;) Throwaway85 (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Pedobear started as 'Safety Bear' on 2ch, anyway. --moof (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe you're referring to walking bear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.141.66 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Alianon Presently Known as Coal: Your instant deletion will be your decidance of unworth of the following. Just because you do not understand worddensity (like memedensity, but theoretically useful), does not mean other people (Australians mostly) do not

  • macefalm*

Yeah, he's there. He was invented by 2chan, and transmigrated via copypasta to 4chan, from one name or another, to pedobear, with possibly some stops in between. He was on occasion, durring a unspoken movement, disguised as running bear, but that fizzled out as the simple fact the /b/ quality has a half-life of seven months (as well as a usage doublelife of i think 1 1/2 to 3 years). That is roughly it. of course, i have this info in 40 megapixels, but... it may not be 'viral' (and death to the one who coined), but quite virulent. Have have been anon since spring of 04. do not question me. njoi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.96.205 (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wired article about project chanolgy and /b/

here. I'm surprised nobody had added anything from this yet, seeing as it came out a couple months ago, and because it has a lot about 4chan and project chanology. estemshorn (talk|contrib) 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Moot's Identity

There is a thread on /b/ about moot right now which has an image where users supposedly discovered his real life identity to be Richard Goins. There are a couple whois reports, but I'm not very familiar with how that works. I can provide the image if needed. It might be worth looking into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darktangent (talkcontribs) 08:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is old meme. See Talk:4chan/Archive_14#What_the_hell.3F. -kotra (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
"The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
'Nuff Said
--estemshorn happy new year 22:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's Chris Poole: http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/poole-testimony.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.193.63 (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Duckroll?

I think there is some sort of error in the article; some one has changed the rickroll-section to duckroll, which, you know, is kind of funny, but not really true. Can any moderators fix this? 87.54.33.250 (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Duckrolling was the original meme that rickrolling spawned from. Was there a particular claim that you feel is not accurate? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

deleted

Trolling here doesn't work particularly well. You might like to confine your efforts to /b/ and Youtube comments, where someone of your skill level stands some chance of success. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the duckroll was first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.160.8 (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing

This page needs serious editing lots of things that can be added like new raids and new memes and perhaps what is done to those posting illegal content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous21211 (talkcontribs) 00:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not happening. We're not your damn tabloid. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 00:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. ED is thataway. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does 4chan have special permission to break the law?

If any other website had half the content 4chan has they'd be raided. 70.57.26.44 (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum. That and they don't have "special permission". Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 06:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
+1 to the "not a forum". Also, they have been raided. Many, many times. They comply with all requests from law enforcement. Also, there are US statutes that indemnify website from content posted by their users. 4chan has always held a "don't break the law" policy. When that is ignored, they cooperate fully with law enforcement officials. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Verizon Blocks 4chan

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/verizon_blocks_4chan.php ... please add this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.2.20 (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I added some basic info. Also, new sections go to the bottom WakiMiko (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add this from Verizon Wireless 2/8/2010: http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/697/ProtectingOurCustomersandOurNetwork.aspx


Protecting Our Customers and Our Network


Jim Gerace posted in PolicyBlog Wireless on February 08, 2010, 03:50 PM EST

The most important thing we offer? Our network. When our network is attacked, or at risk of attack in a way that could harm our customers' ability to make and receive calls, or use wireless multimedia and data services, we jump to action.


Recently, Verizon Wireless security and external experts detected attacks from an IP address associated with the 4Chan family of web sites that was disruptive to our customers and our network. To protect both, we eliminated connectivity to the IP address. At no time was 4Chan itself blocked. Ongoing network security team monitoring has now determined there is no longer an immediate threat. Connectivity to those sites is being restored later today.


Typically, these attacks involve someone sending hundreds of thousands of messages to wireless devices to round up active customer addresses for follow-up activity including hacker attacks. These “sweeps” can jam our network and deliver unwanted electronic messages that also can drain customer devices’ battery life and slow their operation.

We take being the nation's most reliable wireless network seriously. Seriously enough to protect our customers and our network from malicious attacks, even if we get dinged in the blogosphere. It's easy to complain about "blocking" when your wireless data connection is stable, fast and reliable. But try connecting to the web from your Droid or Blackberry when attacks slow - and potentially block - use of our network all together.


We monitor against attacks and potential attacks to ensure the integrity of the Verizon Wireless network. Our customers expect nothing less.

162.115.236.104 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC) JNels

New Information

4Chan is apparently either a victim or supporter of Operation Titstorm because their homepage is covered in pornographic images.(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29#Operation_Titstor and http://www.4chan.org/). I believe this should be archived in the 4Chan page however editing for that page has been blocked. If there is anyone who can edit that page I ask that they do so. JackRendar (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC -6)

Generally new additions need need to be verifiable with reliable sources. If you can find one, request the addition on the talk page here. -- Flyguy649 talk 18:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The servers crashed and I saw it with my own eyes. Don't say it didn't happen. --66.31.103.78 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
That would be original research. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Foundation date

WHOIS suggests 2004. http://www.whois.net/whois/4chan.org MrJontyH (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the whois is correct, but for a short amount of time the domain was 4chan.net (which now redirects to .org). 121.216.207.209 (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pedobear

often used within the community to mock contributors showing an unhealthy interest in under-age girls What the fuck? *looks at source*... this is a joke, right? Completely unreliable source. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


Another point: The references to "American incarnation", Europe, Poland and Malta make no sense. This is not some fad that spreads geographically, and the sentence seem to be written by someone who doesn't understand how 4chan in particular and the internet in general works. 88.91.87.46 (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Connection

Should there be a mentioning about the new Facebook connection and the April Fool's day prank of Web 2.0 takeover? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.239.208 (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, in October of 2010, /b/ agressively trolled a memorial page on FB that was being used to call for wearing of purple on 10/20/10 to commemorate victims of anti-gay bullying, highlighting Tyler Clementi and 5 other higly-publicized cases. The troll attack included use of scripted posts and images supplied at /b/, images from /b/ of popular memes such as "Son: I am homosex/Dad: I am dissapoint", use of Guy Fawkes masks for fake profiles, "For the lulz", and "an hero". Signed, eponymous (not logged in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.234.115 (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cat abuse name removed

The source linked wasn't a reliable source and is a WP:BLP violation. Neither of the reliable sources (one of which doesn't even work) name the individual, nor do they indicate that anyone by this name was convicted of abusing a cat. They also likely wouldn't since the individual is a minor. Not sure when that was added, but if there is other content in the article of that nature its status as a FA should be revisted as that kind of stuff would completely invalidate it.--Crossmr (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

New York City -> suburban New York

This is minor, but thought I'd bring it up. The article says, "4chan was started in 2003 in the bedroom of a 15-year old student from New York City", but the Wall Street Journal referenced says he grew up in suburban New York (near NYC). —Sebquantic (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

moot has said that was a mistake - AFAIK, he was born and raised in Manhattan and currently resides in Astoria. 24.42.68.193 (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Triforcing

I recently made changes to the Triforce section which were promptly removed along with the original paragraph for not having any verifiability. There is a page on Know Your Meme, along with various other sites containing either information about Triforcing or information about how to achieve one. Surely if an editor hadn't have removed the section they would have sufficed. Thanks, DotComCairney 11:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the deletion was a little hasty myself, but, strictly speaking, it is the responsibility of the editor who first adds new material to provide adequate sourcing. If you can provide more specific links to those sources, I'd probably support adding the section back. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Know Your Meme, A Facebook page about it and A Yahoo Answers question about it. I'm sure I could find more but thats it so far. Thanks, DotComCairney 17:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I tried clicking each of those, but they all appeared to be dead links. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. Try now. Thanks, DotComCairney 17:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The second and third sources really do not satisfy WP:RS, and the first is admittedly marginal, but I think it's just enough to put it back, which I'm going to do now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
If KnowYourMeme is a good enough source to make a meme worthy of being mentioned on this article, you might as well just copy and paste every entry from that site into this page. This meme is no more notable or important than any other, and I see no reason for it to be on this page. 169.231.38.204 (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Reverted, an entry on the KnowYourMeme website does not bear serious analysis. Ottre 12:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
My read on this: there are probably users at 4chan who regard this information as a sort of "trade secret", something they don't want new users at their website to know about. The section in question says as much. Is it possible that some editors just do not want Wikipedia to be blowing the cover? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it's because Wikipedia has policies, like this and this, that regulate against material like this. SpigotWho? 17:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New Project

You should note that moot has also said he is working on a new project and has registered the domain of canv.as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.36.88 (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

TED.com Interview

http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for_anonymity_online.html

Brought here as reference material, for later use. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

War with AnonTalk BBS

It was touched upon briefly in the AT&T section, but the extent of the situation I believe requires a bit more coverage. Kimmo Alm, the owner of AnonTalk, has gone so far as to make death threats against moot, and is one of the most prolific spammers 4chan has ever seen. One of 4chan's subdomains, a textboard called Tinychan found at http://tiny.4chan.org has been a particular target, with Alm claiming that it is an "illegal clone" of his work. I haven't contributed to Wikipedia in many years, but I find this to be fascinating. It is also notable that AnonTalk, or Kimmo Alm rather has targeted Wikipedia with his spam. He has tried to advertise his various sites here, and I believe URLs of his sites are to this day blacklisted because of the spamming. It is also worth noting, on the AT&T section, that AnonTalk lost it's domain name for refusing to take down a link to a torrent full of child pornography. Simply put it should say "AnonTalk" instead of "AnonTalk.com," since that URL now redirects to an unrelated anonymous BBS. These events definitely meet the notability standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.90.217 (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I support this. Gunlog Alm (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Being notable is questionable. The main problem is that you haven't left any reliable sources for verifiability. SpigotMap 14:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The only notable source is going to be from encyclopedia dramatica, but you wont accept that as a notable source 98.24.10.14 (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It's perfectly notable, but hardly reliable. Noting against ED, it's the same reason we don't use Wikipedia as a source. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pedobear likes boys, too

{{editsemiprotected}}

Quite honestly, Pedobear is not used only to indicate a liking toward prepubescent girls but also boys. This sentence should be corrected:

  • he is an anthropomorphic bear child predator that is often used within the community to mock contributors showing a sexual interest in under-age girls.

to:

  • he is an anthropomorphic bear child predator that is often used within the community to mock contributors showing a sexual interest in under-age children.

Thanks. -98.19.145.226 (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Soap 22:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no he doesn't...That would be Shotacat. rzrscm (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

4chan and 4chan members are not synonymous

{{editsemiprotected}}

Specifically under "Media Attacks" -> "Internet Attention" -> 6th paragraph, the BBC article does not report that 4chan itself claimed responsibility, but simply certain 4chan members which have no affiliation with 4chan as an organization. 129.21.129.74 (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Done AJCham 02:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Current 4chan attack of Youtube.com

I propose to add the current "hacking" of youtube. 4chan has used this code (sorry, cannot place code without messing with the html script of this page) to place a scrolling marque of text in the comment section of youtube, disallowing other comments to be posted and embedded links to work on the webpage. Among other invalid links was the "Flag as Inappropriate" button, allowing pornography, redirection links and other inappropriate content to be hosted on youtube.com. 4chan.org has archived the thread, and the raid is documented on "Knowyourmeme.com". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.64.150 (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's purely speculation if they started and even if they did, no WP:OR, wait for WP:RS. Q T C 13:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
enjoy. [12]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.52.140 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
"No articles related to 4chan were found." rzrscm (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Justin Beiber

This needs to be added in media attention: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10506482.stm Sherenk (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber Events

All of the past events involving Justin Bieber (Last FM Hacking, Posting Gore on his official Facebook, Sending him to North Korea, etc.) should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude018219293 (talkcontribs) 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no hard evidence that can show that 4chan did anything bad with justin bieber.I would love to see actual evidence and not only some wild hypothesis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugueseboy123 (talkcontribs) 22:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Portugueseboy123 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is speculation that 4chan is behind this. This should be noted at the least. The BBC has made these speculations and its a reliable source.Timestep (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've already added it; please see the thread below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Bieber

http://www.nickburcher.com/2010/07/north-korea-justin-bieber-will-not-be.html ;this HAS to be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.146.253 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A blog isn't a reliable source. rzrscm (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10545038 is a reliable source. Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, indeed it is, as is, actually, the BBC story two threads above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I added it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

m00t

m00t is not living with his mother, unemployed. If you watch the TED video, which is already referred to in this article, he says that he is living in an apartment and is working.

This should be fixed. 173.57.61.233 (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that right now. rzrscm (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome new source

M00t had to testify in the Sarah Palin email hack case to describe 4chan. It includes a lot of very basic descriptions of the site and the boards, so it would be useful. PDF here. Steven Walling 18:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I read through it, and it mostly just confirms things this page already says. I'm going to add it to the external links section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is neither verifiable, nor is it neutral - Jessie Slaughter related

I would be changing this myself, but the article is locked (which is probably for the best).

I am refering to the line "In July 2010, members of 4chan launched a campaign of bullying and harassment against an 11-year-old girl, resulting in her being placed under police protection."

In order for this line to remain in this wikipedia page, you must do several things.

1) Provide a reliable source which states that it was 4chan users behind these attacks

2) Provide irrefutable proof that these attacks were part of some orgnaised campaign, rather than each person simply responding to this girl individually.

1 and 2 should cover verifyable, although I already know that neither of these can occur so I don't know why I'm even writing this.

3) Rewrite it in a neutral tone. Also a staple of wikipedia's rules. That line was clearly written by someone who did not see the video of Jessie threatening to "pop a glock in [people's] mouth and make a brain slushie." It was written by someone who first heard of this person after the story reached mainstream news, and who never visited 4chan to find their perspective.

So we have a line in an article in wikipedia that is making moral judgements about unverified events without even presenting the point of view of those it has condemned.

My ideal solution is to delete the offending line, the entire Jessie Slaughter event is not a significant one in the history of 4chan, and takes up valuable space that could be more easily replaced with much more interesting and informative matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed it completely...It was annoying to read considering how inaccurate it was, and it didn't even accurately reflect the provided source. "Members" of 4chan (What does that even mean, anyway? 4chan has no members.) MAY have been involved in some way, but that doesn't warrant it being mentioned here. rzrscm (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Someone needs to update the picture, because they've added a new board since the current picture was taken. --70.134.48.188 (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh, "needs to" is a bit strong, but it has been six months and still on a "09" image. I've updated it, and this one you can even make out when you look at the full size; rather pointless otherwise, I think. Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

New BBC news story

Now THAT'S a good source - [13] 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Was just coming here to post the same thing! Also, all you 4chan types may want to take a look at pedobear. For a potentially controversial (and Internet-related) article, it's in a terrible shape. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This month's Technology Review article about moot & 4chan, by Julian Dibbell, is probably an even better source: [14]. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The irish times link

The irish times deems to require a login to work fully, so the article should possibly be flagged as so. Not everyone is willing to be pressurised to put their details on the net when referring to a source. Other than that, great article. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Greatest Gaming Competition

Its been rumored that they had a major influence in the voting, using proxxys to help RAAM beat Breen. I don't know if this is true, but if it is it should be added.

Spencer102 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Why do I have to type for tildes?

Please see WP:RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving moot to his own article

sup /wp/

Any reason not to move moot to his own page instead of a subsection? It's getting huge. --Jamiew (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Halo thar. Yeah, he's almost certainly notable enough for his own article, but most of that huge subsection is about him as he relates to 4chan, so separating out a new article probably wouldn't do much good to condense the section (at least if we keep how this article is currently structured). But it wouldn't hurt for somebody to start one, especially if/when new articles get published about things he does other than 4chan. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Cool, agreed, re-reading it is quite linked to the context of 4chan. I'll keep my eyes peeled for ways to branch it out into its own in the near future --Jamiew (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} In the moot section, I believe there is a citation needed for the following statement, since it is not clear on the former citation (102): 'moot also explained to the court the nature of the data given to the FBI as part of the search warrant, including how users can be uniquely identified from site audit logs.'

The citation 102 also could be moved to right after the word "lurker" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igour (talkcontribs) 20:23, 29 September 2010

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I fixed it. The information that wasn't in the newspaper story is in the court transcript, which I got from higher up in this talk, and I've added that at the proper place in that paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done by Tryptofish. --Stickee (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Really don't understand haw this became a featured article.

I mean the in-line citations are higgledepiggledy. They really need formatting. See here for a good example of uncluttered citations for a "disputed" "hot-topic".--Zucchinidreams (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? There are tons of citations in this article, since it's a much longer article, but they look properly formatted to me. Although if you look at the "Article milestones", you'll see that it was promoted to featured article status in 2008, when standards were somewhat less strict. I'd say the article needs a lot of work on structure to really qualify as a featured article, but I haven't bothered to nominate it for Wikipedia:Featured article review yet. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Well it's just that not every sentence needs citation is all. The rest of the article is featurable for sure.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. If you look at today's featured article for example, New South Greenland, the introductory summary omits citations but the rest of the article includes citations for most of the sentences. That's pretty much the ideal format, where the summary is supported by the body of the article, and all the facts in the body of the article are supported by citations. Lots of detail leads to lots of citations...which looks a bit messy, and gets tricky to edit, but tends to be more reliable than a partially-sourced article. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Concerns with this article's featured status include 1c and 2c concerns about the quality of citation formatting, and the use of inappropriate sources (4chan threads are used to source conclusions unsupportable from the direct data, including the popularity on 4chan of particular elements of memes). Web citations still need to be full citations, with page title, hosting site, publisher (if relevant) author, date, etc. I encourage the community of editors to discuss and fix these small issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

4chan's attack on Tumblr

Well as you all may know, tumblr is being under attacked by 4chan. Reason being is because tumblr members are posting memes from 4chan without giving them credit. I'm on 4chan's side, tumblr is becoming more of a 'wannabe' imageboard than a blogging site. My 2cents Anyways, probably someone would like to include the event in the article as its only been 2 days since the attack was planned and a few thousands accounts on tumblr got locked up by 4chan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.139.239 (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral. Sides should not be taken here, even if I incline towards 4chan. But this event is quite significant and there should be a section on it. The war is still continuing.99.243.224.29 (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The only thing keeping it from being included is a reliable source attributing it to 4Chan. Bring one here and I can do it for you The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem with including these types of events in the article is 1. these discussions tend to quickly devolve into an open discussion on the event which violates WP:FORUM and 2. Is it really notable? It is a relatively small group of 4chan users that orchestrate and participate in these attacks. Raids have never been officially sanctioned by Moot or the mods and there has never been a significant proportion of 4chan users directly involved. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
That something I'd have to see a source on to know. 4chan & the /b/tards get the credit/blame for alot of things online that really probably have nothing to with them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice of RfC of potential interest to editors

Editors may be interested in expressing an opinion in relation to the RfC at File talk:4chan front page 2010.png#RfC: ought 4chan front page 2010.png be updated to a version using the current front page of 4chan. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition to moot requested

Sorry, new to Wikipedia but under the moot section it should be noted 4chan is experiencing a spam attack where everyone's posts are changed to to "puddi puddi" while a song of the same name played from an imbedded youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B10BxYZqa1Q&feature=player_embedded. A few of the images posted claimed moot was "killing the cancer" that had predominated board culture (especially /b/) through the forced use of image expression. 06:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly this is not an important enough incident to record. Finding a verifiable reliable source containing an analysis of mod / janitor and user interactions, and mod forced content would be better. It ought to cover party hats, forced .mid files, etc. in general. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
notability/verifiability inverse scale. 0:world war 2/the holocaust. 9: 9/11 inside job. 10:moon landing hoax. 11:events on 4chan. its fun but practically the dicdef of ephemeral.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't here to report on every little thing that happens on 4chan or /b/. rzrscm (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

888.chan

mention of 888chan should be made, as it is a similar in format and content to 4chan and it is the organiser of project chantology. 888chan contains most of the memes and the meme anonymous is far more used in ti than 4chan,

New posts go to the bottom. There are a TON of other chans- 4chan is the one that's been in the news. --King Öomie 14:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
888chan has very little to do with 4chan. It was an offshoot of WWP more than anything. No mention is needed. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
888 has nothing to do with 4chan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.14.178 (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it's frequently referred to as "the mother chan". 888channers are usually current or former 4channers. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mention 888chan then you also need to mention 7chan, 12chan, 420chan... Vhomod33 (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC) /b/ is only one of the boards on 4chan, and the anonymous group organizing the attacks come from anonops.net, not 4chan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.6.33 (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

There's an over 9000 thing under project chanology. I'm too lazy to fix it, if making an account would even allow me to do that, but I'm sure one of you handsome people will do it for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.72.153 (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mootykins

Might well have some personal involvement with the subject of this article. Maybe we should put a template up with that users name with it on the top of the page, like we do with other users who arew involved with the subject of an article.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedians are not notable by virtue of being Wikipedians. And WP:COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
According to the Page stats he has not edited the Article since 2007 and the Talk since 2009. We are aware of it I see no reason pressing need to do it on here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
[15] his statement in this diff actually seems to show he is aware and abiding by our WP:COI policy. So i dont see any pressing need. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, as long as we're following WP:COI|Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Guidelines to an affine degree, then I guess there really is no argument. I suppose this has been settled, which is great, thank you for clearing it up, Resident.Malleus Felonius (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rikos.k, 21 December 2010

Please remove "TIME TO FUCK THIS PAGE UP" Rikos.k (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

website invasion?

The article currently uses the word "invasion" as if everyone knows what that means when it refers to a website. There should be a definition or a link to a definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.110.101 (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you point to where this happens on the page? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"invasions of other websites" is one of only two uses of the word in the article. I'm sorry, but if you are having trouble understanding the usage there you are drastically lacking in common sense. I see no need to spend time clarifying, but feel free to try on your own if you desire. Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, it's a legitimate question — it's not necessarily obvious to everyone what the "weapons" of a virtual raid would be. I added a definition of "posting floods of disruptive content", which isn't perfect, but it'll work for now. Also, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
4chan doesn't host invasions. Moot's even done interview where he expreses his opposition to said invasions.--Graythos1 (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: DDoS attacks

You spelled Anonymous wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.100.195 (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 Done Possibly WP:NOTNEWS here, as the outage was fairly short lived.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request for Dusty The Cat

I think it should be noted that even this event could not have avoided being "lulzified" as NEDM (standing for not even doom music) is a meme involving said cat. --68.94.200.69 (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, what does this mean in plain language?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
It would help if this request could be made in English.--Graythos1 (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Lolwut? English, do you speak it? UMADWiki (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
NEDM doesn't involve "said cat"...NEDM was around long before the Dusty incident, and didn't originate on 4chan. Get your facts straight. rzrscm (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Internet attacks subsection

"4chan users have a reputation for being immature pranksters whose bad behavior is encouraged by the site's total anonymity and the absence of an archive." [16] Some part of this could be emphasized after the first sentence in the 4chan#Internet_attacks section. It would be useful in expressing the observed attitude of 4chan users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoszkar (talkcontribs) 10:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The source cited does indeed pass WP:RS, not just some blog comment or such. I would think we would have to frame it as "According to...", but perhaps some part of that would be worth adding. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to add this source to the page, but not specifically in terms of internet attacks, since the source does not really refer to those. Instead, it refers (as noted) to board contributors, and also provides information about moot's new venture. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

On the discussion of whether or not to include memes

I would argue that contrary to suggestions that the 4chan wiki page include memes, or similarly, that there be a devoted page for 4chan memes outside its official one, that memes be separated entirely from association with purely 4chan. Without citing articles, I would suspect that few if any 4chan members exist purely on 4chan, i.e., that there are people who ONLY contribute or engage with 4chan, and therefore that memes are ubiquitous across many individual sites, and established only after they have permeated the larger web. To suggest that any meme can be confirmed to have been originated at 4chan, would be highly suspect. bradleygriffith (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that this might be so, it would be just as much an issue at a spin-off page. Is there any place here where there is insufficient sourcing? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiLeaks

What about a section on WikiLeaks? This is surely a major event, why so silent about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.207.97 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think you mean the attempts to retaliate against companies that withdrew support for WikiLeaks. Yes, that is worth adding, and I don't think anyone is being intentionally silent, just haven't gotten around to it. Also, there was just an article in the New York Times about Poole and Canvas. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Show me some sources that show that 4chan directly had something to do with it, and I'll add it. rzrscm (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: External links

Adding the "missing" catalog mode to the External links might be a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.50.37 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Dusty the cat

This edit cited "previously removed per WP:BLPNAME)". I don't recall seeing anything about a previous editorial consensus for there to be no name mentioned. I would argue that being arrested and charged with a crime eliminates someone's normal assumption of privacy.

Not interested in edit warring about it though. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Convicted, maybe, but not simply charged. More importantly, though, the person is a minor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Relevance? If they are charged as an adult then that means they are not subject to the conventions of a child. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I removed this back in December 2010 [17] as it has clear WP:BLPNAME issues. The person was a minor at the time of the incident, and no significant context is added by giving the name. Neither of the citations currently gives the name, and the mainstream media would not normally be permitted to do this for a minor. The same thing happened with the puppies thrown into a river in Bosnia. Although police found the teenage girl responsible, they declined to name her publicly.[18] Most of the naming and shaming over the Dusty the Cat incident came from the blogs, and there were threats which Wikipedia should not be encouraging. What would be useful is some reliably sourced information about what happened next. The cat was rehomed, but it is unclear whether the youth responsible faced charges and was sentenced.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

4chan closing

Shouldn't mention be made of the fact that 4chan is imminently closing? moot lost the ad contract for the site and it will not be renewed. Most of the servers are already offline leaving the site painfully slow. Will a new paragraph be added shortly? AmyNelson (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Provide reliable sourcing and we can have it pretty quickly. I did a preliminary google search and got a forum on Game spot from 2008 but nothing recent. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Dramatica closed down in April 2011, but there has been nothing on the grapevine about 4chan. This needs sourcing or it is WP:CRYSTAL.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole board is now read only. Apparently users have migrated to 789chan. AmyNelson (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hogwash, I just posted a halo image to /V/ to test it out. move along and find somewhere else to troll The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Assume good faith, please. Thanks. Dr. WTF (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't call me a troll. The site WAS read only, for an hour, then came back. The site is currently down except for the front page. The down times, read only times, and extreme slowness, coupled with some other factors are what is causing many users to say it is closely imminently. I merely thought I could discuss it on the discussion page as it seemed relevant. AmyNelson (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's like every time The Pirate Bay is down for an hour people think the website's closed down by the authorities. In the absence of a reliable source to the contrary, we should not automatically assume 4chan's being shut down. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 23:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Parody banner

What exactly makes this significant? This event seems to have been cherry-picked out of the many that occur on 4chan every year and mentioned simply because it involves Wikipedia. It should be removed. --2.98.187.84 (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Should moot have his own article?

All of the information about moot is currently on the 4chan page..

But, moot is notable for many more things than 4chan, such as Canvas and even being the inspiration of Anonymous, should he have his own article or not? SalfEnergy (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably yes. I think it would be reasonable to start such a page (under Christopher Poole, not moot). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I made an article, it's just copied from 4chan#moot at the moment, I'm hoping more people will edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talkcontribs) 15:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I'll try to work on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I run a Historical/ Archivist Website related to 4chan.

I'm a co-owner and co-founder of a site called Yotsuba Society, or the "Society for the Study and Preservation of Yotsuba Channel". It's a website dedicated to study and preservation of the Western Imageboard Culture. Is is OK that I include a link to the site on the main 4chan page of Wikipedia? Jkid4 (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on exactly what the site contains. You can look at WP:EL to get a feel for what is or is not acceptable. It's good of you to ask about it here in talk. It would be OK to put a link to it here, on the talk page, for a start. That way, I and other editors could take a look at it and give a more informed answer. Also, if we decide to include it, one of us could add it to the page, which keeps you on the right side of WP:COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Since you're interested. Here's the link: http://www.yotsubasociety.org Jkid4 (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Unless other editors here feel that it satisfies WP:EL, I'd suggest not using it on this page. But it might be worth looking into the Yotsuba&! article instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you've misinterpreted his post. "Yotsuba Channel" = 4chan ("yo(tsu) = four in Japanese; similarly "Futaba Channel" = 2chan). It's a synonym-based namesake of the 4chan site itself. His EL has nothing to do with the Yotsuba&! manga. No comment from me as to whether it meets WP:EL though. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 14:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, sorry. That being the case, I'm afraid it fails EL and should not be used on Wikipedia. But I appreciate the effort taken to discuss it in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"its boards are primarily used for the posting of pictures and discussion of manga and anime."

This doesn't seem like a very good description, seeing as the most frequented boards are about nothing in particular, video gaming, and porn. Perhaps someone would back one side or the other up? 173.180.124.102 (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. (This refers to a sentence in the lead.) I propose changing "primarily" to "nominally". Given that such a change would be a significant one, I am only proposing it here in talk. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The way the lede currently appears isn't quite accurate, as it gives the impression that animoo is the prime and main topic discussed on 4chan. I think rewording it to "its boards were initially used for the posting of pictures and discussion of manga and anime, and today is ....." or something similar would reflect the topic better. Given that non-animu topics, not only on /b/ but also /g/, /k/, /v/, /sci/, /int/, etc etc "outnumber" animu topics, it would be wrong to claim that the site is dedicated to animu discussion; on the other hand, during the early stages of the site this was actually the case (non-animu boards weren't created until some time after 4chan first went online, and these boards weren't as populated until many years later), and the original purpose of 4chan (and moot's original intention) was the exchange of weeaboo culture. I think it definitely needs a change, however a mention of how 4chan originally was also makes sense. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 07:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a very good analysis of the issue, thanks. (But, this being Wikipedia, let's please stick to calling it anime.) Actually, where you use the word "originally" near the end of your comment, I like that even better. And I think your approach is better than my idea about "nominally", less loaded in its language. For now, pending whatever might be the description of what it is today, I'm going to make the change to "originally". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
My bad, though I find it awkward to use the word "anime" nowadays even in a semi-formal context for some reason. (Don't take it the wrong way, I have nothing against anime; I myself frequent /a/, /jp/ and /g/, the three big weeaboo boards.) Your change to the lede works out fine, I think we'll leave that part of the lede like that. Though, do you think we should also describe 4chan today within the lede as something along the lines of "a site for the discussion of various topics such as video games, x. y and z, as well as (somehow explain /b/)"? After all, a lede should effectively summarize the basic idea of the whole article. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 05:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
All good, and I agree with you on all of that. I'm fine with expanding the lead that way, but I'm not likely to do it myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

I see no criticism section here. I have read in over 14 news articles at least a minimum of criticism against 4chan, especially how minors are attracted to the site, how there is next to no moderation on specific boards, the mess of trying to find a thread in a fast-paced browsing board, the thought of "making one bisexual/gay" (I don't know if this can be considered critisism, but I read it anyhow) and some minor other things. Should I add sentences if I have the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.83.62 (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As you note, sourcing is the key point here. Yes, WP:NPOV indicates that properly balanced criticism is very appropriate to add. You may wish to consider whether it is better to have a separate criticism section, or to place the criticisms throughout the page, where their subjects occur. If you run into difficulty editing the page because it is semi-protected, you can also propose edits on this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.149.154.119, 30 September 2011

In the Pedobear subsection there is a mention of sexual interest in "underage children" - it seems to imply that there are children who are more than 18 years old.

I would simply change it to, "children". 88.149.154.119 (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I made the change. Thank you for pointing it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Today, /hc/ is available again. In the article, it's just specified that /hc/ was deleted but nothing about now. Could we modified it? :D Evoliofly (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If some independent reliable source covers it, then yes - please repeat your request with an appropriate source. Otherwise, no.  Chzz  ►  05:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. (covered by the originally cited ref; Quote in the header of the citation: "New [old] boards: /r9k/ /pol/ /hc/, and introducing /diy/~") -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 05:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

DDoS attacks on the site

The "DDoS Attacks" part of "Media attention" needs to be updated to include the latest DDoS mentioned on status.4chan.org that has caused the site to go down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.152.92 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I created a seperate section because i was waiting for a post like this to tell me where it should more appropriately be placed. I'll do it soon. Noahk11 (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone removed it again :( Noahk11 (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Not notable. 4chan is DDoS'd several times a year or more. We'd have to write about every occurrence, and that just isn't necessary. Kinaro(say hello) (what's been done) 17:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

New Boards notability

Do we need the paragraph discussing /soc/, /r9k/, and /new/? I don't think they are really notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. /r9k/ and /new/ are significant because they were removed earlier this year, and the former was re-added in October. As for /soc/, it too is a new board, and if it's included in the article, /diy/, /pol/, and /hc/ should be as well, in a section for 2011 additions (which I believe does exist). Kinaro(say hello) (what's been done) 17:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I removed this sentence During the 2011 South by Southwest festival, 4chan founder Christopher Poole commented on the growing My Little Pony following, because it's really saying nothing. he commented on the following. Wow, great, so what? What was his comment? Even if we don't quote it, did he give it a thumbs up, thumbs down, did he say anything at all other than "Yeah there sure are a lot of ponies on /b/"? Otherwise this is simply WP:TRIVIA because nothing of value is really said in this sentence.--Crossmr (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mattathias Schwartz

This journalist's name is misspelled (as "Matthias"). Please correct to "Mattathias." Thank you. Jtropp1 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out.  :D--Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Where should I put this in the article?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/feds-raid-boys-home-over-4chan-child-porn-post I don't know which section to put it. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that it is appropriate to add it to the page. Are there any more recent news reports, following up on the raid? I'd suggest giving it its own sub-section (something like "Pornography raid"), at the end of the "Media attention" section. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Could somebody please edit the section of Memes: My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic so that it is not biased? Somebody edited the section to represent their views of the meme, not the general public's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.0.67 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

BT DNS and HTTP block

As of 6th Dec 4chan.org is removed from BT DNS servers and attempts to access the IP directly are blocked. This affects all the BT UK ISP users. Please add this to the list of ISP Bans on the main article (as the article is semi-locked). Thanks. (86.150.90.218)

If correct, this would need a source. I couldn't find anything in a Google search at the moment. BT did block Newzbin after a court order.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Can't find a source for it, not even sure if it's actually correct. It would not be the first time, however; as much as I'd like to see this sort of activity on the part of any ISP I can't see a way to do so at this time. Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I realise this counts as original research and therefore can't be included in the article but I was able to access 4chan using a UK BT internet connection just now so it doesn't appear to be blocked. 109.150.172.234 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Memes" Image is completely wrong

Most of the memes on said file (one with 15 faces) are never used on 4chan anymore, for the ones that were it's at least a year or two out of date. Several of them were never on 4chan to begin with, such as the "Me Gusta" image and the vectorized versions of photos (Although the source photos for the latter were at one point used as "reaction images"-pictures posted alongside a post in order to represent one's personal reaction to the thread or a specific post. It's clear somebody just went on knowyourmeme.com or reddit (which recycles most of 4chan's old content in their rage comic or other subreddits) and copy-pasted a few images into a file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T3haxle (talkcontribs) 23:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I request an edit as well. By now this picture can be found in the 9gag and Rage comics articles as well. Someone is forcing it strongly.

Hardring (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Also nominated for deletion: "Copyright violation since it is a derivative work with no treshold of originality. Image is a collage of "meme" images, and there is no evidence that all, if not any, of these images are licensed under a free license such as CC. The "trollface" image, for example, is copyright by its original author "Whynne" from DeviantArt. Image also contains a poorly vectored image of Yao Ming copyrighted by the Associated Press, and the poorly vectorised Obama image is also likely to be copyrighted." -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 02:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My Little Pony

Why is it under the memes section? Sure, 4chan helped make it popular to internet users, but that doesn't make it a meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.29.221 (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, first I'm not sure where else to put it. Second, the MLP fandom mostly manifests itself online through the use of image macros, youtube edits, and so forth. So it conforms to the definition of "meme". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it does conform to that definition, but it seems so out of place to the point where it appears more like it's an advertisement than anything else. 76.179.39.45 (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
How is it an advertisement?? I don't think anyone is promoting MLP here. ReginaldTQ (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the general 4chan user hates my little pony. Also it's not a meme. It's a TV-show, that's something entirely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.11.61 (talk)

Can you prove that please? -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 16:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't provide concrete descriptive evidence, but anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that there is some degree of animosity and dislike towards the cartoon franchise and its fanbase by portion(s) of the 4chan userbase:
Again, only anecdotal evidence can be given, since nobody writes scientific journals about 4chan, or newspaper articles about what 4chan happens to be doing at a point in time. If you're going to ask for a news article or something, then that's something quite unreasonable to ask for. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 10:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Kusaga (talk) keeps removing MLP from the article. The remixes, image macros, etc fit the definition of meme (or internet phenomenon) as does its spread. There are several reliable sources that document it. It's as documented as an other "4chan meme". He should move to the talk page to build consensus first before making such a change. It should be noted that there is legitimate disdain for MLP among many members of 4chan, especially the anime boards. This is irrelevant as to whether it should be included or not. Nowhere does it say that "4chan memes" have to have universal acceptance. Remember the strong distain by many for Boxxy? The reliable sources are the most important, so it should be included. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC) WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument. It doesn't matter if a lot of the internet hates MLP or not. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not a 4chan meme because the 4chan users do not enjoy it, and it is forbidden to post ponies on 4chan, so it should not be in the meme section. It should however be in the article since it has spread from 4chan, just not in the meme section.Kusaga (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can't speak for all 4chan users. Obviously there is some support for MLP, even if it's not a majority. For those who don't know, MLP threads are only allowed in a single general thread in /co/ and unofficially on /b/. Moot made a sticky suggesting that MLP posters on /b/ could go elsewhere, but it was ineffective. Also the section documents both "memes" that are popular on 4chan itself, and spread to other sites. The ones that spread to other sites are going to be represented more because they would get more media attention, and thus become more notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Moot specifically said once that posting ponies outside of /b/ was a bannable offense. I'd go searching through my folder of screendumps, but I'm not home at the moment. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 02:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
There was a Peace Treaty which ended the Pony Wars. Link. These basic rules have been in place since then. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

you are wrong, pony poster do get banned, just accept that you are wrong, they are not a meme, and should not be under the meme section. I do agree the should be in the article, just not in the meme section.
MLP did come from 4chan, but it is not liked on 4chan so not a meme on 4chan.
Kusaga (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's "liked" or not is irrelevant. The facts and reliable sources cited speak for themselves. Also there is always a MLP general in /co/. Each thread usually gets to 600+ posts and it's usually found on the first three pages. Check for yourself if you disbelieve. MLP:FiM deserves to be on there as much as Chocolate Rain, or Boxxy. Since this is an "agree to disagree" situation, we can wait for the input of others on the talk page or go to some kind of third party arbitration --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Moot just created /mlp/ - Pony. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

9gag

Hey there, I'm not here to cause any trouble, but the editors on the (quite horrible) 9gag article seem insistent on including a piece of information that relates to 4chan as well, so I am just wondering if it is worthy of noting it on the 4chan page too? The paragraph in question reads as follows : "In January 2012, some members of 9Gag were blamed for 4Chan reportedly engaging in a cyber-bullying attack on Facebook memorial pages of 15-year-old suicide victim Amanda Cummings, posting offensive pictures and comments mocking her death." Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Arrests Section

The reference for the blurb on "Lucas Henderson", specifically states that Mr. Henderson is facing charges "for allegedly posting counterfeit coupons on zoklet.net". As the arrest is only tangentially related to 4chan, it doesn't really fit. Ignofibininious (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fags of 4chan

In the 4chan community, -fag is used as a neutral suffix used on the boards to describe its users, i.e. variant form of "-person"

e.g. "Newfag", "Oldfag", "Drawfag", "Writefag", "Namefag", ect.

Anyone else think this is worthy of noting on the article? Lightsaber Guy (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Found some source! [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightsaber Guy (talkcontribs) 17:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Link to Tripcode

Tripcodes are mentioned in Imageboard - here, in the third paragraph. (When I make links, I do actually check them to make sure the thing they wind up at is what I want - unlike people who e.g. link to tree when they want the datastructure and don't bother to check it and wind up leaving the article with a link to the green thing.) I thought about making the link a piped link direct to Imageboard (to avoid the redirect) but decided not to because if someone, someday, writes a tripcode article, the link from 4chan will be right without having to go back and undo the bypass. And while Imageboard might be linked from 4chan, unless someone happens to click on that link and read the entire article thoroughly, they won't have any idea that if they need to know what a 'tripcode' might be, they need to go back and click on the Imageboard link. (I didn't know what a 'tripcode' was, which is why I added the link. So I can indeed verify that the link to Imageboard wasn't very useful in elucidating its meaning for me.) Noel (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Board post rates

http://vps.tinyboard.org/chans/rank.txt is automatically generated every week err I mean hour, and lists the post rate of 4chan boards, as well as other *chan website boards, by posts/hour, posts/day, /posts/year, and % of total site, and lists them in a rank. The accuracy of these rankings are quite solid and reliable, however would it constitute WP:OR if I cited these figures within the article? -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 11:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

From here:

# About
This script routinely checks the total amount of posts on each board (by
finding the highest post ID on the first page). It will produce comprehensive
graphs (by day, week, month and year) for individual imageboards as well as
some *chan/board comparison graphs. The script uses PHP, bash and rrdtool.
# Limitations
These graphs and the ranking are very accurate, but the script does have
some extremely minor inaccuracies:
- If you "sage" a thread past the first page, it will go unnoticed until
  someone makes a post after you. (The bot doesn't actually have to see
  every post to be 100% accurate, just the latest post.)
- If a post is deleted shortly after it's made it will go unnoticed (until
  someone posts after it).
All content assumed to be public domain.
You may clone it as many times as possible.

See also http://vps.tinyboard.org/chans/README.txt and http://vps.tinyboard.org/chans/chans.txt for additional information. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 11:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It's still just a website. But you can link to it at the bottom Shii (tock) 08:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Update Needed

I suggest you update the photo of the homepage as more boards have been put in place and it is an old picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.157.32 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think its fine ReginaldTQ (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Make this open

We need to allow this page to be open for edits, as I have not seen any disruption for a few months, even when the article was unlocked a few years ago.140.198.45.66 (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"The most popular posts"?

The page opens with:

Users generally post anonymously, with the most popular posts appearing above the rest.

This would seem to imply a reddit-style page where the most popular posts show first, which is completely wrong. Latest posts show first, i.e. "bumped" threads, like most forums (of course most popular threads have more posts, thus you are more likely to see them on top, but that's a different thing). I suggest to change it to:

Users generally post anonymously, with the most recent posts appearing above the rest.

which is a bit more clear IMO. 188.79.140.169 (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Alleged attack on anime voice actress' twitter

On 31 August 2012, Japanese voice actress Eri Kitamura closed her Twitter account after users from the /a/ (anime and manga) board on 4chan posted images of their penises on her Twitter page.[107]
September 2012, 被外国网友发不雅照 喜多村英梨宣布停用推特 (Overseas netizens post indecent images, Eri Kitamura announces that she will cease using Twitter), Sina.com

I have some doubts in this event. Do people have more sources on this? This is affecting 4chan's image among asian users.1.161.42.221 (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Archive of the original threads on /a/ prior to the raid: Thread /a/70914943/, Thread /a/70920806/. The Sina.com source already provided verifies this (Sina.com is a mainstream Chinese news/media portal, similar to CNN, although they divide their site into sections which cover all sorts of categories, which include comics and anime news). "This is affecting 4chan's image among asian users." - 4chan already has a reputation in Japan and elsewhere for being such a website, ever since the Scientology shenanigans hit mainstream media. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored, and we do not omit information solely because it might upset a certain group of people or tarnish the reputation of something. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 10:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This is bullshit, man. Only SEVEN (7) people from the entire board sent pics of their dicks and two of them (KitsMcGee and pizzadad420) did it with the only purpose of trolling /a/, it's not fair to blame the entire board for it.
Proof: http://archive.foolz.us/a/thread/70979683/#70984303, http://fuuka.warosu.org/jp/thread/9662550#p9662808 XxXweedlord420xXx (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Would you consider it reasonable if the text was changed to: "...closed her Twitter account after a small handful of users from the /a/ (anime and manga) board on 4chan..."? (changed text in bold for emphasis) I'm willing to make reasonable changes, as long as we can all agree on something. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 12:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, first off the whole paragraph is wrong because the relationship between KitaEri and Yamanaka is just a rumor that some users from 2ch came up with after they saw her pics in his twitter and then /a/ ate it. And 7 people (and again, 2 of them with the sole purpose of TROLLING THE BOARD) sending dicks doesn't seem a relevant incident, so I can't understand how it should even be in this article. XxXweedlord420xXx (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
It is a notable event as it is covered by third party references, and it is quite significantly discussed in Japanese, mainland Chinese and Taiwanese cyberspace (a Baidu search for "喜多村英梨 4chan" provides plenty of hits, and it is a current search trend). Regarding the KitaEri/Yamanaka relationship, I've reworded that part as well. What do you think of the current revision of the article? -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 12:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
It isn't nearly as mediatic as anything covered in this article, it isn't an event driven by the board but by 5 users and 2 trolls, which is something completely negligible given the size of the board. Being a recent search trend on whatever site doesn't make this relevant. XxXweedlord420xXx (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The paragraph does not imply that the event was board driven. The event was user driven, and the board involved just happened to be /a/, as per the archives. If the posts were made on /hm/, then the article would explain that users from /hm/ posted images of penises on Twitter, but this isn't the case. Notability can be established from a variety of things, and this event was covered by the media, just like how the stadium bomb threats were covered by the media as well. If an event has zero media coverage, then inclusion within the article is not possible due to original research. Per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia articles report on what is reported in third party sources; it may not represent the WP:TRUTH, and it does not represent the WP:TRUTH. It doesn't matter how "true" something is, it requires a proper citation. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 12:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't quite follow you. What are you trying to imply? Are there any other sources apart from that Sina website (the one you linked below is the same article), which only seems to state there was a misunderstanding on 4chan that caused 5 users and 2 trolls to send their penises? XxXweedlord420xXx (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That users from 4chan were involved in a raid, and caught the attention of the media in a foreign country. The section of the article we're talking about is titled "Media attention", and its contents deal with such things. If, I dunno, Daiz !H264whatever suddenly announced his suicide, and the media did not report on it because of lack of interest, then it wouldn't be eligible for inclusion. It's as simple as that. We include information that is described in third party sources, that is notable and verifiable. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 13:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Can you provide other reliable sources, apart from Sina who only states there was a misunderstanding?
2. It was NOT a raid. 5 users and 2 trolls do NOT constitute a raid, we're talking about a very large board. XxXweedlord420xXx (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policy stating that you need twelve references to cite a statement. The Sina.com reference is adequate. "4chan网友向喜多村英梨的推特发送含有男性生殖器的照片" - 4chan users post images of male genitalia on the Twitter of Eri Kitamura. "从8月31日开始,4chan网友开始有规模的向喜多村英梨的推特发送含有男性生殖器的照片,并附带污言秽语。喜多村英梨表示“非常受打击,这也太过分了,加油工作吧……”" - Beginning on 31 August, 4chan users began posting images of male genitalia on Eri Kitamura's Twitter, coupled with comments containing obscenities. Kitamura expresses that "I feel very violated/attacked, this is has gone too far, I guess I'll try hard working..." Though the article does not specifically mention /a/, it is quite evident from the archives that the posts were made on /a/, and you do not need a citation to prove that grass is green. It is quite obvious from the Sina.com source that users coming from 4chan attacked her. Sina is a reliable source, as it is a major news outlet in China, and as per WP:NONENG, English language sources are preferred, however foreign language sources are also acceptable if no reliable sources in English are available at the time. Your claim "5 users and 2 trolls do NOT constitute a raid, we're talking about a very large board" is original research in itself. In fact, I think you might be the one who has the burden of proof to find a reliable source to prove that there were internally troublemaking trolls involved, and the number of users involved do not constitute a raid. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 13:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- In that news article you can see a capture that shows the 7 tweets. There weren't more.
- If you accept the archives as evidence that the posts came from /a/, then you also have to accept that 2 of those guys were trolling, one of them even openly admitted it.
- What is there to prove? Do you even know what's a raid? /a/ is the 4th most trafficked board on 4chan after /b/, /v/ and /vg/ (source: moot), there are thousands of users at any given time, 5 of them deciding to send some pictures and 2 trolls joining them doesn't even come close to a raid, which is board driven.
And I suggest you to take a look at WP:BLP here, here and here. XxXweedlord420xXx (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why you're linking to WP:BLP. Have a read at the title. "Biography of Living Persons". Do you even know what you are talking about? This isn't even a biography, let alone a BLP. Your attempt at policy shopping gives the impression that you're blindly grasping for straws.
It would be helpful on your part to refrain from canvassing on other websites in an attempt to garner off-wiki support elsewhere, like you have done here. Judging by the timestamps and similarity of the words used (repeated repetition of "5 users and 2 trolls") and your explanation to other /a/ users about talk page consensus, I'm assuming that the original poster of that thread on 4chan /a/, now 404ed and archived, is you. Given that you already have an ulterior motive within the content dispute (Quote: "You don't want /a/ getting even worse, right? Then get in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:4chan and try to remove the reference to the dick-sending event... The 4chan article on Wikipedia gets over 3000 views daily. Do you want some retard coming here to join the EPIC RAIDS the article mentions?"), I think we're done discussing here, unless you're willing to make a genuine effort at civil consensus making. This time I'll even turn a blind eye, and won't report you to WP:ANI.
Your attempt at gaming the system is outright disruptive. The purpose of your presence here at the discussion is little more than an attempt to censor article content because you don't like it: let me remind you that /a/ isn't your "super sekrit club guize, don't tell anyone" to the point that you need to be vermently partisan about how it appears on Wikipedia. I've attempted to assume good faith towards your intentions, but it seems apparent that I shouldn't be expecting too much. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 22:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
First off, no, I didn't create that thread. If you read the other Ijime Connect threads, you'll see many posts about how only 7 people (and pointing out the 2 trolls too) were responsible for sending the pics. In fact, even an ironic copypasta was created and spammed just for this purpose. Aside from that, even if there were people trying to canvass it's obvious they haven't succeeded at it, as I've mentioned below.
I pointed out the BLP because there's a section that explains how it's applied to groups, and states that in case of doubt high-quality sources must be used. You seem to be familiarized with Wikipedia policies, so if I'm wrong I'm sorry for bringing that out.
I truly have no ulterior motive but to improve the quality of Wikipedia. And I honestly can't see many reasons for the event to be included in this article. My points from my previous comments still stand. XxXweedlord420xXx (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) If I have been too belligerent in my speech, then I apologise; when things like this do occur it does get quite confronting. As long as you understand that the point of making contributions to Wikipedia is to be constructive, then that's fine, and I'll ease up on you a bit. I however still would like to disagree with removing the statements from the article, and hope that we can come to an agreement or some sort of compromise.

These two news articles do not specifically mention 4chan, however report on Eri closing her Twitter account due to obscenity attacks:

Thus, it isn't a dubious statement that her Twitter was closed due to attacks and abuse. Then we have the Sina.com article affirming that some attacks came from 4chan, either in full or in portion (which isn't up to Wikipedia to report or decide, per WP:OR). Each reference builds on top of other references, thus verifying the statement. If you want to deny that the attacks came from /a/, and instead /v/ or /sp/ or whatever, we have the archives for that. I'd also like to make a mention that whenever 2ch is involved in a political incident concerning specific Japanese politicians, 2ch is never referred to by name, and instead "a certain discussion website" is used per standard journalism protocol in Japan, which is why the two Japanese sources do not mention any websites. Since this generally is a Japan issue, I don't there expect there to be English-language sources any time soon, especially since the likes of CNN don't particular care about Japanese anime voice actresses compared to news readers in China, Korea and Japan. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 00:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this right, you said no original research(Your claim "5 users and 2 trolls do NOT constitute a raid, we're talking about a very large board" is original research in itself.), yet you included the fact about /a/ board being the origin despite zero mention of that in the Sina.com article, which attributed it to 4chan and not any board specifically. And you justify it because of your research into foolz archives. Nice. Epic. I like it. If you want to play the rule nazi, at least be consistent about it.
>it is quite evident from the archives that the posts were made on /a/
It is quite evident from the archives that the posts were made by /v/ trolls.
Two can play this evident game. Put a new citation for the /a/ mention or attribute it to purely 4chan. 81.95.126.166 (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree this is a notable event. I am from Taiwan, and I like 4chan, and I try to google about this news when I heard it from China and Taiwan, and this is the place I found when I try to use English keywords. I trust Sina.com's coverage, and I wanted to see if English disscussion care about this.1.161.42.221 (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Coverage is not limited to Sina.cn: See also this article from pcgames.com.cn. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 12:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Need reliable sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There's two. One describes the prank event by the anime producer in Japan, the other describes the 4chan raid. Explain to me how the existing ones are inadequate, or find me the relevant policy dictating that multiple references are needed for minor statements. Would you mind to be a bit more specific, instead of simply leaving a three word post? You have to be more specific when trying to build towards consensus. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 22:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
But the article from Sina and the one you linked are the same article... and it doesn't even mention /a/ nor is a reliable source. It also misses out most of the important information regarding the incident the paragraph describes, like the rumor on 2ch which remain unsourced or the "users on /a/ called for her Twitter account to be posted with images of penises" statement, which honestly I don't find adequate without proper source.XxXweedlord420xXx (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

How ironic that 4chan//a/ is getting "epic trolled" here too by an /b/-tier troll. 5 users can be rewritten as "a handful of users" and cited by news sources that are notoriously inaccurate at reporting ongoings at 4chan. Next thing, there'll be a blurb on how Anonymous blew up random vans on the streets[1]. [1] - Fox news investigation video. 121.6.52.236 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I have changed the "raid" language to the more neutral "post". Given the apparent controversy over what happened, and the obvious conflict of interest of 4chan users in not wanting this material to be made public, new users who suddenly show up here are going to be suspected of having been recruited at 4chan or other websites external to Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
There isn't any conflict of interests, and people there don't really care about what Wikipedia says about them.
The paragraph is still wrong: the article on Sina only says there has been a misunderstanding (which this article doesn't state) that caused 7 people from 4chan to send their penises to KitaEri, period. However, the paragraph says "a small handful of users", which is clearly misleading given the scale of 4chan, and "users on /a/ called for her Twitter account to be posted with images of penises", which is unsourced and wrong. I have to remind you that the article doesn't even mention /a/, and that if you accept the archives as evidence then you also have to accept that 2 of the 7 guys did it just for trolling the board and that actually there was only one (1) post that prompted people to attack KitaEri. Again, the actions of 5 users from the fourth most active board on 4chan are totally individual. And I fail to see how the last part is relevant to this discussion given that no one is coming here to massively support either side.
Given the nature of the only source that the whole paragraph is based on (lacking information, mostly gossip-level, Chinese) and taking in account WP:BLP and that these kind of events are usually poorly managed by the press, I think we also need a more reliable source. XxXweedlord420xXx (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Um...
Given the apparent controversy over what happened, and the obvious conflict of interest of 4chan users in not wanting this material to be made public, new users who suddenly show up here are going to be suspected of having been recruited at 4chan or other websites external to Wikipedia.
I'm sorry, but you've kinda put your foot in your mouth there. Frankly speaking, if there was any kind of "gather the pitchforks" like that going on here, you'd have a lot less readable sentences. Personally, I just have this on my watchlist, and like most watchlist pages I only really pop in if I see anything major. I don't happen to think that there's enough neutral sourcing to merit including "the event" here, but I also can't really say that it would be the worst thing to have associated with 4chan.
You can choose to believe that there's some kind of chan-board-conspiracy going on, but in just about any argument if you decide to declare that anyone arriving and disagreeing with you is part of said conspiracy... well, that's just wrong. The statement is wrong, the principal is wrong, you're wrong for saying it, and (no offense intended) it comes across as a little Tinfoil Hat.
Let's try to keep this discussion based on accurate (impartial) sources, and not knee-jerk impressions of other editors' motivation, k? Thanks. Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the /a/ archive has a search function, and no doubt there's been canvassing going on. Don't get me wrong, I too would like this discussion to stick to meaningful talk, but I'm not expecting too much from it if these things happen. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 22:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
If it has, it certainly hasn't been successful. I don't really see the point discussing further a nonexistent issue. Could you please address my points? XxXweedlord420xXx (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That's akin to saying "I tried to kill my wife, but the knife was too blunt, therefore I shouldn't be charged with attempted murder". Are you trying to brush off the issue and distance yourself from the attempted canvassing that's been occurring? WP:CANVASSing is a serious issue, and it is taken very seriously on Wikipedia. It certainly isn't a "nonexistent issue". -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 23:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe what I'm trying to state is that you are acting akin to a paranoid lunatic over the matter. Yes, WP:CANVASS is a legitimate issue on Wikipedia as a whole, yes you apparently feel that you have evidence to believe that it could be a factor here. However, this current response is closer to "Oh, I'm sorry officer. My grandmother said my great-great-uncle was killed by a knife-wielding lunatic so when I saw the waitress offer me a knife for my waffles I felt obbligated to shoot everyone in the restaurant in self-defense."
I'm sorry, but when I second person shows up to reiterate a stupid argument it tries on my patience: Look at my bloody edit history, and if you happen to find a reason there to ignore wp:good faith then you can feel free to use this argument against me.
Until then, I'd thank you to keep your baseless paranoia to yourself, and to not accuse random editors of wp:canvass for no good reason. In my opinion, you've managed to move this from a case of "oh, what's this on my watchlist" and "well, that's a little uncalled for" straight on to "is this person actually being serious??" Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could remain a bit more civil on the matter. I haven't been blowing things out of proportions, and I would prefer it if you could reciprocate. I wouldn't attempt to make appeal to ridicule arguments, and your remarks do seem to be somewhat confronting. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 00:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
edit: I had an edit conflict because you decided to toss in the "appeal to ridicule" bit. Which is actually about 5x as much time and effort than I really felt like spending responding to baseless accusations of wp:canvass. As I originally stated: I do not much like accusations of canvassing without rational, and I do think that things would have been fine without your "murder anecdote". If you do sense a tinge of "confronting" in my wording, do feel free to take it with a grain of salt, take no personal offense, and place yourself in the shoes of the accused. End edit.
I'm actually completely fine with things remaining civil. You might note that was my exact point, after which your response was "I tried to kill my wife, but the knife was too blunt, therefore I shouldn't be charged with attempted murder". I do not wish to see this devolve into a situation of "all dissenters must be 'btards'" or some such nonsense. I actually refrain from editing this article too frequently because I don't want such stigma, which unfortunately seems to be very prevalent.
The fact is, that I don't care if people think they have some kind of "evidence" to suspect canvassing, they should not be out-and-out accusing any dissenting voices of it without good reason. Quirky anecdotes such as yours are entirely unneeded, and this one in particular only served to impress on me that you lacked any opinion of good faith on my part, or on the part of the other editor. It would be much appreciated if we could not drop the topic of wp:canvass without any further evidence, and return to the matter at hand. Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The canvassing has been occurring, and not much fruition has gained from it, that's all there is. Alright, my example was really bad I admit that, and on your remark on "paranoia", wouldn't one become suspicious when things like this happen? I don't mean to be a dick on the issue, I do hope though that you, and others, take into account of such things. You don't have to finalise all your judgments on them, that's not what I'm asking; I am merely hoping that the canvassing can be taken into account so when something happens we all know when to tread lightly. As long as "come to Talk:4chan" threads stop popping up on the automatic 4chan archives, there wouldn't be a need to be bringing these things up. I hope you can understand where I am getting at. I'm fine with leaving this issue and returning to the main topic for now as long as the plot doesn't thicken any further. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 01:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

To put all this into perspective, here is a link to news coverage in English: Animenewsnetwork reporting about the topic Most notable is the following: "Voice actress Eri Kitamura also announced that her agency deleted her Twitter account, after she received a number of offensive messages regarding an unproven personal involvement with Kokoro Connect's producer Takahiro Yamanaka.", a link to Kitamura's blog where she makes this statement can be found in the linked article. This makes it pretty obvious that /a/'s involvement in the whole issue was rather coincidental and minor, in fact no sane person would assume that somebody with more than 20000 followers on Twitter would shut down her account merely because a couple of random foreigners send pictures of their penises. The real reason was that Kitamura was already being harassed by lots of Japanese "fans". The paragraph in question should either be removed or changed to better represent the given facts. Personally I'd vote for removal because this kind of topic is rather something for the yellow press to get excited about, but I'll leave that up to other editors. 80.141.150.229 (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright then, that makes sense. Until further references emerge which explain the situation in a different manner, I'll be removing the paragraph on the Kitamura incident. It's much clearer now that the Twitter deletion is more likely due to hordes of 2ch users spamming her Twitter, as opposed to the 4chan users, which is likely to be secondary at most in being the cause. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 10:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said. Maybe it should be metioned in KitaEri's trivia that she got wrongly caught on the Ijime Connect incident, though being such a recent occurence it might be better to wait how her agency handles this in the short term (after all, attacks to her were based on rumors, so I doubt her Twitter will stay deleted for much longer).
I'm glad we've reached a civil consensus. XxXweedlord420xXx (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just some info coming in http://pastebin.com/Pu2hADMc .Ald™ ¬_¬™ 11:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)