Talk:4chan/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Recent updates.

Recently 4chan got an API and built-in plugin functions, making it more usable for stuff. Might want to stick something about that in there. 99.74.3.116 (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that talks about this monumental occasion? Its more useful for stuff. Is that what you want included in the article? --Onorem♠Dil 21:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, just to give some links here so we have a place to start from...

First off there's the official news post about it. I'd say that would suffice if you were to just insert a one-liner about it (which is really all I think is necessary, considering the recency). I would suggest something along the lines of "In September 2012 moot announced that the site would implement JSON API. He explained that this was partially due to the number of third-party extensions for the site, as well as a dramatic reduction in size compared to the original HTML." Just my suggestion.

The only other semi-repudable sites that I found talking about this were here and here. I wouldn't consider either one of them good enough to stand alone, but considering the fact that I don't think an addition as small as my suggestion needs further sourcing it still can't hurt to have something. Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

4chan caused the death of someone innocent?

I've heard that one man killed a policeman and another person, then someone leaving nearby who found out about it through a local news channel decided to do some "trolling" on 4chan, claimed to be the shooter and that the house was rigged with explosives. Someone then posts a link to the thread on Fox News' Twtter-account, fox shows it on the live news and eventually the police gets involved and throws a tear gas grenade into the house which starts a fire but they refused to go in since they were under the impression that it was rigged with explosives and the person inside, who wasn't the real shooter, burned to death. If this is true and can be verified by reliable sources, I think it's worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.235.9 (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"If this is true and can be verified by reliable sources, I think it's worth a mention."

Sure. We'll be waiting. Best of luck.Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a garbled version of an incident that occurred in Modesto, California in April 2012. A gunman shot and killed a sheriff’s deputy and a civilian locksmith during an eviction, then barricaded himself into the apartment for eleven hours.[1] During the siege, KTXL FOX40 News apparently accepted Internet postings on 4chan as the work of the gunman.[2][3]. The gunman shot and killed himself, and the online posts were a hoax. An interesting story, but not the one given above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

4chanarchive

The link to 4chanarchive should be updated - it is massively out-of-date. The site moved to chanarchive.org about a year ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.148.183 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Someone on 4chan just made another trademark "Go here and click save page" link at http://wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4chan&action=edit&oldid=520849920. Figured better to err on the side of caution. 24.56.14.206 (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

4chan pass

I think it ought to be mentioned that ISP bans can be evaded by use of a 4chan pass. I have nothing else to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.161.199 (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

moralfag

The wiki page 'moralfag' redirects here, but no mention of the term on this page. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moralfag Page is protected, so I can't edit. Juliusbier (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a fair point, as the article says "Users often refer to each other, and much of the outside world, as fags" but does not give a specific explanation of the term moralfag. Standard 4chan practice is to refer to any person as a fag, eg Wikifag, Britfag, Ausfag.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the redirect to point to the /b/ section which contains that short explanation. However, the redirect seems to me kind of iffy, unless we actually have an explanation of the use of "-fag" terms in the article text. Of course, sourcing that would probably be tricky. — daranz [ t ] 19:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd disagree with directing it to the /b/ section. As a 4chan user I can confirm "-fag" is fairly site-wide. Remember, /b/ is just a single board (or sub forum if you're more comfortable with that), albeit a large one. Of course for obvious reasons citing this without going into original research would be tricky. 70.78.10.56 (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The /b/ section of the article is the section that mentions 4chan's liberal use of the word "fag." If we were to link to the article itself, it would be a bit more confusing (and perhaps ironic).  — daranz [ t ] 06:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

My Little Pony

Can someone please explain why My Little Pony has its own section on the 4chan page, when the my little pony incident isn't as big as Habbo hotel raids, April Furs day, blindmuteloli, or any of the other much more important chapter in 4chans history? The section itself misleads readers into thinking that the my little pony fandom was a unique occurrence on 4chan, when in fact adult male fans of children's cartoons have been doing everything that the section mentions since at least the creation of /co/ (comics and cartoons). The section portrays my little pony fans as unique in creating image macros when image macros of cartoons have been popular since the dawn of fansubbing. The section fails to mention the general disdain other users on 4chan have for bronies, nor does it address the fact that /mlp/ was created as a way to keep them from posting and annoying (and in several cases spamming) the other boards, much like /pol/, /new/ and /n/ were created to keep radical political discussion contained.

I would delete the section myself and rewrite it if anyone bothered to put it back up to be a more accurate depiction of the my little pony incident, but I don't have an active account and don't intend on making one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.82.231 (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted it entirely. It was reliant on two sources which did not even mention 4chan, another source that was dead, and KnowYourMeme.com, which is user submitted. It's just more bullshit by Bronies trying to make themselves more important.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've partially restored it - that a reference is no longer online is no reason to remove the content it supports. This meme is not given more or less weight than the others. The Variety and Independent references, even if don't mention 4chan, are relevant to the topic described in the section and useful for explaining it better. Diego (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. None of the references in the section, save for this one even mention "4chan" in their text, and that one is a random opinion piece written by a brony and submitted and accepted by his college's newspaper. It's not a reliable source. There is nothing unique about 4chan's stance on MLP so it should not be on the article. And the Variety and Independent pieces don't mention 4chan in any fashion, so it is synthesis to use the content within on this entirely unrelated subject, particularly when The Independent only mentions Hasbro and MLP in a single sentence.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Quote: "that a reference is no longer online is no reason to remove the content it supports" - I have to disagree with this. If a URL becomes a dead link, it is the responsibility of editors to find an alternative reference to support that statement. This is a basic verifiability issue; deadlinks are not verifiable, and WP:V is a core policy. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced the section with the one from the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic#Fandom. It includes a lot better sources, including Wall Street Journal, Rolling Stone, National Post, and Wired. It may need some tweaks to fit the 4chan page better. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Do they mention a relationship between 4chan and MLP? If not then the section should be removed.— -dainomite   04:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A good chunk of the sources do not mention 4chan at all. Those that do mention 4chan in a single sentence.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've cut everything down to this one sentence, as that's all the sources really say. Everything says "4chan" once and moves on, other than that article in The Daily Barometer which is a student newspaper and it is an opinion piece in the newspaper at best. We do not need to extensively cover the "brony" phenomenon on 4chan when it's covered so much better elsewhere on the project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly though, if this is how the references are being interpretted here I'd hate to see what's going on elsewhere on the project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Much better. The one off sentence actually fits in in terms of importance relative to other chan phenomenon 141.117.116.168 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

spiderman meme

there is no mention of the 'spiderman meme', which is on a level with boxxy and the other memes. is this due to a lack of sources, or has it just been forgotten? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to document memes. The ones listed here are only done so due to their mentions in mainstream media.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually hae seen the spiderman meme a lot online. I wonder if it's had any coverage tho? ReginaldTQ (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

other boards

there is literally nothing on here about the other 64 boards on 4chan

just rename the article /b/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.28.223 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

10 years

Today it is 1 decade (10 years) old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.254.207 (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC) --150.216.254.207 (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Palin email hack

The text currently states: "The incident was criticized by some /b/ users, in that most reports on the hack focused on 4chan, rather than Palin's violation of campaign law."

As far as I can tell, there is no mention of any 'violation of campaign law' in any of the sources given, including in the Wikipedia article concerning the incident. Without better sourcing, I would suggest removing the last part of the sentence. -- 173.22.42.208 (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate/misleading wording in main paragraph

Where it says "Users generally post anonymously, with the most recent posts appearing above the rest.", "posts" should be replaced with "threads", since more recent threads appear above older ones, but inside threads, posts are shown from earliest to latest by default. 98.24.14.97 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris on anonymity

Chris has posted this essay about how anonymity made 4chan thrive, and how it fosters experimentation and creativity (and internet memes!). I think it may be relevant to include a mention to it, as the view of the site creator. 212.0.102.74 (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Grammar edit

You cannot evacuate a person, only a building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.156.17 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You can evacuate a person. It means to take them someplace safe. Greedo8 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing Gawker

The site's "Random" board is by far its most popular and notorious feature. Known as "/b/", there are minimal rules on posted content. 
Gawker once jokingly claimed that "reading /b/ will melt your brain".

Seeing as this source is a blog, I would say it's not reliabe WP:NEWSBLOG WP:BLOGS. Especially regarding statistics stating something is more/less popular than something else. I'm assuming this quote was refering to Gawker's sentence:

While 4chan's topic areas cover several aspects of Japanese culture, anime, and plenty of dirty hentai, the only board that matters is /b/.

Which itself does not claim /b/ is the most popular, only that in the writer's opinion it is the most important.

In addition to unreliability, this entire quote seems like it would be more appropriate under the /b/ imageboard section. Greedo8 (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What we're talking about here is my revert: [4]. Yes, I understand where you are coming from. A lot of what I reacted to was that I think the "melt your brain" comment belongs here. It is, indeed, just somebody's individual opinion, but I think it's a noteworthy one, and we attribute it properly. But if there isn't reliable sourcing for /b/ being the "most popular", I'd be OK with removing that claim. I would think we could find sourcing for there being minimal rules, or that it is a statement that does not require sourcing. The reason I'm OK with it not being down in the /b/ section of the page is that the information is an overall description of 4chan, and I think it's appropriate to keep content that conveys the, well, flavor of that. How about:

"The site's "Random" board is known as "/b/", where there are minimal rules on posted content. Gawker once jokingly claimed that "reading /b/ will melt your brain"."?

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say Gawker is absolutely a reliable source on the subject of 4chan. It's primarily an aggregator blog, but it's done a good amount of original reporting on 4chan and Anonymous, and even had some run-ins with the same. Is there really controversy over whether /b/ is the most popular board? When most people talk about 4chan they mean /b/. It was the first one Poole created and by far the most popular. Even if we just go by Wikipedia terms, there are so many articles written about /b/ (and almost none about any other) that it's certainly the most notable. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

While Gawker may or may not contain correct information, it's still a blog. It consists primarily of opinions, and in this case very little or no research to back up any claims. I agree "/b/" is the most notable, and don't think that requires a source. "Most popular", however, is not a claim we are qualified to make. I still have a problem with how out of place the sentence appears in the paragraph, but otherwise I agree with the change. Greedo8 (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like there is at least for the moment some agreement that the change would be an improvement, so I'm going to make the edit, but that doesn't mean that the discussion is over. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Gawker is not somebody's .blogspot.com blog. It's not self-published by the authors. It has an editor and a significant staff. This one has come up on the RSN multiple times. Most of the criticism it gets there is for citing its aggregation stories, which is fine, but other than that it's reliable on a contextual basis just like anything else (reliable source for an Obama quote? no. Baseball stats? No. But 4chan? I'd trust it more than most national papers). Also, if by "most popular" you mean "gets the most traffic and press" then yes of course we're in a position to say that. For anyone who has used or researched the subject it's furthermore noncontroversial -- like the statement "Google is known for its search engine." Nonetheless, I went and pulled a couple sources from the first couple pages of ghits that both claim /b/ to be most popular. One is from Wired; the other an academic paper published by MIT. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with those sources, and have no problem with the wording either. Greedo8 (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the new edits and sourcing are good. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced section and logic problems

The section of the article that describes the /b/ board has critical comments from 3rd-parties, but the article itself is written with a bias toward the behavior shown there, with praise about "intricate jokes" and "dark humor" rather than "homophobia" and "cliquishness".

Furthermore, it is logically impossible to ban someone "for no reason".

People have been banned for posting things like photos of naked men, even though the site is notorious for child porn. That, in combination with the incessant referral to people as "fags" reflects a homophobic elitism that this article fails to address. It implies that the anti-gay behavior and attitude is somehow sophisticated.

Any site that is "moderated" immoderately is also not actually moderated.

It is instead controlled/dominated by the whims of a certain group of people who share certain qualities -- a clique. What the /b/ section really is is a sandbox that certain types of people are allowed to play in and others are not. It is not some sort of last stand for Internet freedom by any means.

"You have been banned. Date ban will be lifted: never. Reason for banning: none given."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.15.175 (talk • contribs) 01:09, March 26, 2014‎

I think that you raise some interesting issues, largely per WP:NPOV. I'm not really sure what to do about them, however, per WP:NOR. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the IP wants us to do here. Greedo8 16:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

August photo leaks

We can maybe sustain a section on this in this article, but material in it should be sourced appropriately and original research (or stuff that's basically only citable to the urban dictionary) should not be added. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since 4chan is the earliest source of the leaked material and it has received considerable media coverage over this, it should be mentioned. There is now a separate article for August 2014 celebrity photo leaks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• 4chan says that it is changing its rules as a result of this incident.[5][6] This is somewhat ironic, because /b/ has long been a dumping ground for stolen photos. This should be in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Controversy in video game culture

This section, as it is written right now, doesn't appear to be a neutral summary of 4chan's relationship to gamergate. It uses the passive voice when discussing 4chan's involvement w/ Quinn's harassment and then switches to the active voice when talking about something that sounds laudatory (donating to a campaign). I also have serious reservations that their involvement w/ the FYC is the most "notable" connection between 4chan and gamergate. I won't tag the section w/ a POV tag just yet, as I think this can be resolved through the talk page, but I have some concerns. Protonk (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There was a thorough earlier version that covered the incident from several angles, and was deleted as undue weight; you may want to help me restore the numerous reliable sources that established it as significant. WRT to TFYC, these are the only sources available I know that cover 4chan in depth, if you are aware of any others bring them here and we can use them to expand the section to what the existing references allow. Diego (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I can understand the length complaint, in a way. Paper or not, the article is pretty long as it is and includes many summaries of controversies or disputes which have their own article (as gamergate does). Protonk (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This needs only a brief mention and link to GamerGate. 4chan's role is peripheral in my view, and should not be given undue prominence. This has become the Donglegate incident du jour, and is being blown up out of all proportion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Katawa Shoujo

Since Katawa Shoujo originated on 4chan, and 4chan played a large role in it's devolpment, shouldn't Katawa Shoujo be in the "See also" section? 71.75.130.191 (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Someone might want to incorporate it into the main text, rather than have a single "see also", however. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Since The Legacy of Totalitarianism in a Tundra also originated on 4chan, and 4chan played a large role in it's devolpment, shouldn't The Legacy of Totalitarianism in a Tundra also be in the "See also" section? 158.223.178.246 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Murder

Added that as section, as there are now many reliable sources reporting it. Not sure what to call that section.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/4chan-images-match-grisly-washington-slaying-scene-investigators-n241806 --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Update needed -- the murder suspect surrendered this evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:c56a:cb00:b9d6:b7e5:e7e2:b083 (talk • contribs) 06:32, November 6, 2014‎

Name origin?

Why "4chan", rather than, say, "5chin" or "7wxyz"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, moot said something about this during a live streamed panel. At the time, the domain name "3chan.net" was taken, so they went for +1 of that, hence "4chan.net" (which later became ".org" because GoDaddy suspended the .net domain). The choice of 3chan.net was a reference to 2chan.net, where moot stole the imageboard source code from before putting it through AltaVista Babelfish. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of 4chan. NG101 ^{[ t c r]} 07:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2015

Hello,I just sent this message to suggest that in the background, erase the part that says: "/a/ – Anime/General" and "/b/ – Anime/Random" Because the sources just explain that existed before: "/a/ – Anime/Manga" and "/b/ – Random"

Thank you for your attention

Hostandress (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Question: @Hostandress: Is this the text you would like to change:

"When he first created the website, it had only two boards: "/a/ – Anime/General" and "/b/ – Anime/Random"; over time more boards were created, and /b/ was eventually renamed to simply "/b/ – Random" "? Can you clarify why you'd like it changed? I'm having difficulty understanding; it seems to address your concern, no?  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

moot's resignation

Today moot made a news post saying that he's resigning as administrator for 4chan, the article could probably do with updating once some real sources come along. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

International Business Times --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it still appropriate to call him the owner (as in the info box)? 09I500 (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate

The reliable sources do not discuss TFYC as a causative factor in Gamergate, and dragging anonymous, speculative and unsupported allegations against a living person into this article is simply not on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please state which "reliable sources" you are referring to, and what edits you are claiming to be "speculative and unsupported allegations". On a related note, I don't see why Gamergate needs its own section on this page: 4chan's link with the subject seems trivial. Greedo8 19:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

As per the directly cited reliable source and dozens of others, the allegations laid against Zoe Quinn which launched Gamergate are false, the end, period. It is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy to paint Zoe Quinn in a false light. If the word "false" is again removed, I intend to seek sanctions against the removing editor under the Gamergate community sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please remain civil, threats are not helpful to anyone. You still have not shown any sources with evidence that prove they are false. As editors of Wikipedia, we are to remain neutral until such evidence is sourced. Greedo8 18:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coverage of Gamergate is in the news today.[7]. My two cents is that some people are getting far too worked up over this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't demand "evidence" from reliable sources, we simply republish what reliable sources say. Please read WP:5P and WP:V for more information. If you think the whole section is undue weight and doesn't belong, I have no objection to just removing it wholesale. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If the sources don't state where they got their information, then their reliability comes into question. The sources cited are dubious at best already, even without this issue. Greedo8 18:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to contest the reliability of The Telegraph, I suggest you take it up on the WP:RSN. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The directly cited reliable source does not assert that any particular allegation(s) launched Gamergate. I checked. It is very circumspect about this matter. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nature of accusations

Discussion closed for BLP reasons, do not reopen. Risker (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Redacted) [Removed comment by editor blocked as a sock; WP:BLP concerns. Guettarda (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)] No, we aren't going to leave out the clear conclusion of reliable sources that the allegations against Quinn which launched Gamergate are false. As I said, this would paint Quinn in a false light, which is absolutely prohibited both by policy and by common sense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC) (Redacted) [Removed comment by editor blocked as a sock; WP:BLP concerns. Guettarda (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)] Nowhere that I've seen does it state the allegations are false in the article by The Telegraph. I would like to do the same in this article, readers can take their own stance on the issue without us prodding them in one direction or another. Greedo8 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC) This is well covered in reliable sources as "unfounded" or "false". We should report it as such in the article per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.(Redacted) References Strongjam (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC) In my opinion, WP:BLP comes down on the side of us being extra careful not to promote anything defamatory about Quinn, instead of anything defamatory about anonymous posters at 4chan. Consequently, we are better off describing the accusations as "false", rather than using more ambiguous words or leaving the adjective out. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC) My analysis of the sources listed above: The Guardian article states an outright falsehood: it attributes a claim to Gjoni that was never made in his blog post. If there's any possible BLP violation here, it's citing that article. Notice that other articles are careful not to attribute that particular claim to Gjoni. The Washington Post article, even in the most damning quote User:Strongjam can find, does not label the allegations "false" or "unfounded". It does not even attribute that wording to Totilo. It merely reports Totilo's conclusion that there had been no wrongdoing. Even if Totilo's word is taken as divine, that doesn't actually disprove that any particular thing happened; it only indicates that Totilo doesn't think that it was a problem. It also only mentions one allegation, so it cannot properly support a claim about false allegations in the plural. The Telegraph article's use of the word "false" is not in connection with Gjoni's blog. It is unclear whether it attributes the allegation regarding favourable critical treatment to Gjoni, but he factually did not make any such claim - that was the subject of investigation by others. While the article observes that Grayson had never reviewed Depression Quest, this does not disprove the "favourable critical treatment" allegation, since "favourable critical treatment" can consist of things other than a review. More importantly: this is the source being used to claim that the controversy began with false allegations, but it does not make any explicit declaration about where the matter "began". (The other articles don't appear to do this, either; they hint around the topic and leave the reader to WP:SYNTH a conclusion.) The New Yorker article is factually incorrect in its statement; the commonly-cited promotion is right here, (Redacted) Grayson also arguably "promotes" Depression Quest in the Rebel Jam article, by mentioning Quinn as its author apropos of absolutely nothing. The canada.com article appears to have been taken down. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC) canada.com just changed their URL scheme, the article was not taken down. Updated the URL. I've also retracted some of your comment per WP:BLPPRIMARY. This is a settled issue in RS. We're not going to violate WP:BLP by doing our own original research. — Strongjam (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I have redacted your Guardian link per WP:BLPGOSSIP. An untrue statement cannot be verifiable. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Ha, well I don't see the problem, but if you somehow have a problem with The Guardian and Helen Lewis then I guess we're done. — Strongjam (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Source Review of GamerGate Allegations

Discussion closed for BLP reasons, do not reopen. Risker (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm going to try to dip my toe in here, because there is good work to be done and I want to help. If I understand the full extent of the allegations leveled at Ms. Quinn, according to the reliable sources it is alleged that she received positive coverage and publicity for her work due to an affair with a game journalist, yes? I reviewed the articles from the most reliable sources available who covered this aspect of the story to determine if that coverage is properly expressed in this article space. From what I found, only a handful of reporters definitively called all of the allegations, as stated above, "false." Most stated that the involved parties denied the allegations. Some only reported on the allegations without assigning a value judgement. Some use words like "conspiracy theory" or "flimsy," but fell short of actually calling the allegations false even though they do assign a negative value to the claims. Here's what I've found, and I have bolded the relevant parts: New York Times "Some of the crusaders against Ms. Quinn justified their actions by constructing flimsy conspiracies that she colluded unethically with journalists". Describing something as "flimsy" is not the same as calling it "false." New York Times "The game review site Kotaku, which employed the journalist named in the accusation, said he had not written about her game." Kotaku denies the allegation. This is not the same thing as calling it "false." New York Times "A jilted ex-boyfriend of hers posted a nearly-10,000-word screed that accused her of sleeping with a journalist for positive reviews. The claim, though false, set off a wave of outrage..." This article states the Grayson did not review Depression Quest. Washington Post "Quinn’s ex-boyfriend, programmer Eron Gjoni, wrote a blog post accusing Quinn of having an affair with a writer for a games Web site that had reported on 'Depression Quest.' The site investigated the alleged ethics breach and concluded there had been no wrongdoing." Again, Kotaku claims there was no wrongdoing, a fact that is not in dispute. The Washington Post reporter does not call the allegations "false." Washington Post "While both he and Quinn denied the allegations that she somehow traded sex for coverage, outraged gamers had already taken to Twitter, Reddit and 4chan by the tens of thousands to protest the so-called ethical breaches in gaming journalism." Quinn and Grayson denied the allegation. By now it is firmly established that Kotaku, Grayson, and Quinn have denied these allegations. This is not the same as a reliable source calling the allegations "false." Washington Post "Suspicions over ethical problems in gaming journalism grew even after the accusations against Quinn were proven untrue..." This article states unequivocally that the allegations were proven untrue, though the allegations are limited to a review of the game, not overall positive coverage or publicity for the designer. The Guardian "There were allegations that she had slept with Grayson in order to secure a favourable review for Depression Quest – though he never actually reviewed the game." Again the article frames the allegations as only whether or not Grayson reviewed the game, not about the overall positive coverage and publicity for Quinn. The Guardian "'The Zoe post'", published in August 2014, made a series of unfounded accusations that Gjoni’s former lover Zoe Quinn, an independent games developer, had traded sex for positive reviews." The article limits the unfounded allegations to a review, rather than overall positive coverage and publicity. The Guardian "Accusations were hurled at Quinn via gamer forums and sites like Reddit and 4Chan. Gaming news blog Kotaku clarified that an alleged breach of journalistic objectivity concerning Quinn never actually took place." Again, it is clearly the case that Kotaku, Quinn, and Grayson deny the allegations. The New Yorker "The attacks on Quinn escalated when an ex-boyfriend posted a tirade on a blog and exposed an alleged relationship that he claimed she had with a journalist who wrote about the game. The journalist in question pointed out that he had not reviewed the game and had merely reported its existence." Again, carefully parsed. The New Yorker author is not calling the entirety of the allegations "false." The article simply states the journalist in question called the allegations false. NPR "Gjoni sparked the #Gamergate debate when he wrote online that Quinn had cheated on him, one time with a journalist for the games website Kotaku. The implication was that she had done so to get better reviews for Depression Quest. Quinn and Kotaku have denied those claims, but what followed was #Gamergate." The accused parties denied the claims. New York Magazine "They often pointed me to long, pretty involved conspiracy theories that seemed to claim, among other things, that various gaming websites were colluding to attack the 'gamer' identity they held so dear, or that an indie developer named Zoe Quinn had slept her way to positive coverage." The reporter calls the allegations a conspiracy theory, he does not label them definitively "false." BBC "The posts detailed that Ms Quinn had had a relationship with a journalist at prominent games site Kotaku - prompting accusations from others she had done so in an attempt to get positive reviews for her game, Depression Quest. While the relationship happened, the review did not." Once again it is firmly established the Grayson did not write a review of Depression Quest. The Telegraph "They feel that Quinn’s alleged sex life proves a questionable relationship between journalists and developers. To them, this is an issue about journalistic integrity and ethics. #GamerGate is the hashtag they say they’re using to have a worthwhile conversation. Quinn disagrees..." The involved parties deny the allegation. Slate "One of his most contentious (and unproven) accusations: that she slept with a gaming journalist at Kotaku who helped secure favorable coverage and publicity for her game Depression Quest." Unproven. Not false. I may be missing a few, but I think you get the idea. From the sources we can clearly deduce that Grayson never wrote a review of Depression Quest, and Kotaku, Quinn, and Grayson all deny the allegations. Those statements are clear an unequivocal. Now, is that the same thing as calling the allegations "false?" I would argue the sources do not support that claim. It's not even clear what the allegations entail, which could be any (or all) of the following): Quinn and Grayson had a romantic relationship (confirmed) Grayson wrote a positive review of Depression Quest (false) Grayson wrote articles involving Quinn and Depression Quest (confirmed) Quinn received undue coverage from the gaming press due to the existence of personal relationships (no evidence) Quinn colluded with journalists for positive coverage (no evidence) Please note, if you have BLP concerns with this post, that I am not speculating as to the veracity of the claims which have been widely covered by reliable sources. Frankly I'm not interested in the claims at all. I am merely reviewing the sources to make sure they are being used properly in the article space. Further, striving for an impartial tone is not the same as inserting expressions of doubt. Personally I think that unsubstantiated is much more reflective of the majority of sources than the term false. But I'm not sure a qualifier is warranted at all for that claim. There is zero evidence of impropriety (unsubstantiated). But that is not the same thing as saying there definitively was no impropriety (false). It's the same sort of distinction one would make when using the terms not guilty versus innocent. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Saying "unsubstantiated allegation" introduces a suspicion in the mind of the reader that someone is likely to have done something, otherwise it would not have been mentioned in this encyclopedic article. The point about mud is that it sticks, and Wikipedia will not be used to "allege" that a living person derived benefit from providing sex. For someone who is not at all interested in the claims, you have put in a lot of work but the allegations are still false—the presumption of innocence is a legal right in many areas, and that principle applies at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC) While also thanking ColorOfSuffering for some careful work, I agree with Johnuniq. Part of the problem is that this page (4chan) does not (and should not) parse out all the details of the controversy, but only refers to posts on the 4chan site, which included all kinds of stuff beyond the things covered in the journalistic sources cited here, and we need to make clear that stuff that was posted was false, not just controversial. As I said higher up on this talk page, whatever presumption of innocence might apply to anonymous posters at 4chan, BLP requires us to apply a greater such presumption to Quinn. And I don't think the analyses of the sources are precisely correct either. Describing something as "flimsy" is not the same as calling it "false." Well, it really is calling it false. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"primordial soup-stains ... digital plaguepits"

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

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

Rape Capital of the Internet

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

---

There needs to be a section on the sexual violence as it is both the source and the Mecca of internet violence. Any one who opposes will have rape threats sent to them and the site glorifies and encourages violence against women. If you don's believe me then look at at the page of Anita Sarkeesian (no I am not a feminist, I think they are just as sexist as the perverted trolls) but there is a problem that needs to be addressed and it is the biggest stick in the mud and that is saying a lot from a site that is like a failed state.--106.68.66.8 (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Remember it is from that site that Rule 34 was invented and has been controversial from day one, which includes child pornography of both boys and girls.--106.68.66.8 (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect, "Rule 34" does not refer to underage pornography, it is instead the concept (for the lack of a better term) that pornography on every single subject exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euphoria42 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Ask anyone about the site, they are certain to say something negative about the site without balancing it out with anything positive. It started off with the sexualisation of anime girls that are under aged and anyone from any other site who threatens rape admits to be invading from 4chan.--58.7.49.228 (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, physical force is an impossibility.

I am forced to conclude that by "internet violence" we are talking about the forcefulness of emotion expressed on the Internet. Aside from being rather over-the-top rhetoric for such a thing, it seems to me that it could equally well describe, say, the reaction (conveyed via the Internet) to a rape threat taken seriously. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Watch AngryJoeShow with the episode Top 10 Gaming Controversies of 2013! at number 3, he mentions the rape and death threats to Anita Sarkessian and he said are from 4chan.--124.148.192.42 (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously 4chan and all the porn on the internet needs to go. It is the root for all the rape threats, homophobic slurs and politically incorrect bigotry. I don't care if it takes ten years, the internet is like the wild west and needs to be tamed like the wild west. There is nothing redeemable about the site, nothing and it only supports the patriarchy with an iron fist, encourages violence against women and children and loves blaming the victim just for challenging any stereotype ever known to exist. --106.68.23.249 (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Anita Sarkeesian

Special criticism of rape threats should be mentioned for Feminist Frequency. Trolls have attacked her on tumbler, threatening her of murder, forced prostitution and rape. Its not enougth that they antagonise Youtube, they must harass feminist on their own site for not wanting to be sex slaves.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Then if that is the case, the site's trolling center should be coupled with Reddit and yes, I was referring to the Gamergate controversy.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sheik Suleman al-Britani:

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-jersey-31868491

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

Although this involves 4chan, it probably doesn't have enough long term notability to be mentioned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I remember that guy, and I always had the feeling that one day or another he'd get a doorknock from the authorities. He used to spend every single day on /int/ telling everyone that all kufar needed to be beheaded, and that Britain belonged to the prophet. But yeah, I agree with Ianmacm, this might not really have much of a lasting notability, and it seems like a much smaller scale event compared to other things mentioned within the article (e.g. threats of school shootings, etc). --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"Sheik Suleman al-Britani" (not his real name btw) is a good example of the sort of person who spends all day on 4chan spouting racial nonsense, but 18 months probation is not notable enough for a mention when there are many more serious incidents involving extremism. The incident was related to Asperger syndrome and the judge did not believe that genuine extremist threats were involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Some more detail here. Most of this is obvious sh1tposting, but he was charged with possessing a magazine that promotes terrorism and publishing bomb-making instructions online. He apparently did this on 22 September 2014 (and no, you can't read any details in the very small screenshot).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/03/14/autistic-islander-obsessed-with-islamic-extremism-spared-prison/

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

I'm 50-50 about whether this is notable enough to mention, because it does show that there are limits even on 4chan, and that the police will become involved if a line is crossed. The non-custodial sentence and the fact that the person involved had mental health issues is why I am not sure that this needs to be added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is an amusing (to me) and troublesome (to society) incident, but it's not particularly notable. It's just another person getting in legal trouble for chan stupidity. If we do add it, I'd recommend it be in a single sentence in the Child pornography and other arrests subsection. (As an aside, this subsection may need to be renamed to something like "Arrests related to 4chan" or simply "Arrests".) Regarding his mental health issues, I'm not particularly keen on including that. Since it's apparently relative to the case, maybe add another sentence detailing why. For example:

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

Some citations could then be added at the end. Anything more is unnecessary, in my opinion. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think there are some WP:BLPNAME issues with naming the man involved, as although it did appear in news stories, the rules are stricter in Wikipedia articles. If a person without mental health issues had done this, they would probably have gone to prison, and it would have been notable enough to mention.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What of all the other names in the section? Apologies for my ignorance, but why are they allowed? Is this because they were actually arrested and charged, as compared to this individual? If we can't name the person, and he was technically not charged with a crime, I guess it isn't worthwhile or notable enough to mention. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

My position on this is that the non-custodial sentence means that it isn't notable enough for a mention as it would have issues with WP:10YT and WP:DUE. Naming a person in an article requires more than a passing notability, which is something the 21-year-old man from Jersey does not have.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I was just making sure we're making the right decision. I guess it'll remain out, then. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"False accusations" against Zoe Quinn

Change to accusations. If you're trying to be bias you're doing a good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.65.75 (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Your link goes nowhere 60.231.179.6 (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Moot He Is Gone

Shouldn't we change this article to reflex current ownership, now that Chris "Mooty-pattootie" Poole is no longer the owner and operator? We have an article on Kim DotCom née Kimberly Schmitzwe could link in....rather than encourage nostalgic vandals to remind us that Moot is forever Admin Maximus Emeritus in their cold shriveled hearts, we could simply mention that he started the site, enshrining him as "founder and creator" in our InfoBox, rather than current owner, and update our information to reflect current reality and current owner. (Source: http://www.4chan.org/news?#119 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=41900745&v=wall&story_fbid=878109784210)

-71.235.31.212 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Everyone is, indeed, finally out of the Poole.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015

add Hiroyuki Nishimura 94.39.154.206 (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done By Smortypi in this edit. — Strongjam (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Alleged link to Shooting of Jamar Clark#Black Lives Matter protest shooting

Re this edit: At the moment this is all in the realms of "allegedly" and "reportedly", which leads to too much WP:RECENTISM and not enough hard facts. It is also pretty much a carbon copy of claims that the shooter in the Umpqua Community College shooting posted on 4chan, which have currently fizzled out due to a lack of evidence. This would be more on topic at Shooting of Jamar Clark, but if it has to be qualified by multiple uses of phrases like "it is believed that" there is a risk of introducing WP:WEASEL wording to support the claims. The article Shooting of Jamar Clark does not currently mention the alleged 4chan link.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"Allegedly" is in line with a presumption of innocence - none of the men involved in the shooting have entered a guilty plea or been found guilty yet. The Umpqua shooter didn't record a video namedropping multiple 4chan boards prior to his rampage, but these men did. Additionally, the Star Tribune released court documents which stated that the accused used and viewed 4chan prior to the shooting. I invite you to watch the video and read the docs if you haven't already.

Regards, 3hunna (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is first and foremost worth mentioning at Shooting of Jamar Clark because it has WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:10YT issues here. At the moment the long term significance for 4chan has yet to be established.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point about the event's parent article, I'll update it later with a modified version of what was originally posted here. As for WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:10YT, it truly passes both. The event described lies at an intersection of multiple notable 2010s sociopolitical trends - the rise in American mass shootings, the resurgence of white supremacist and extreme right-wing groups/ideologies, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the ongoing debate over Internet anonymity. Its specific inclusion in the 4chan article is merited by the alleged perpetrators' relevant use of 4chan immediately preceding their attack. If the Chanology section and the numerous mentions of pedophile arrests and hoax threats pass muster, then this definitely should. -- 3hunna (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This needs some time to settle down to see what the courts have to say about it. 4chan has been dragged into controversies in the past, and there is a case to be heard in court.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

==Boards mentioned If the aim here is impartiality, why is /pol/, one of the newer boards and still not one with top traffic, mentioned as the only "notable imageboard" other than /b/? Wikipedia exists to document, not to fan the flames of controversy. It could be argued that 4chan's very ephemeral nature makes an impartial documentation impossible, but could someone less involved at least moderate cherry-picking a bit? What makes, for instance, /v/ and /a/ not notable? If there's really no room or knowledge for a breakdown of the various former and current boards on the page, then why not just omit the mention of any of them? I know that any website associated in any way with Encyclopedia Dramatica has a long and sordid history with Wikipedia, but for a website meant to reflect things neutrally, Wikipedia is doing a poor job on this page currently. The profanity-and-lies-ridden ED article somehow provides a more accurate overall view. If neutrality on this topic is unattainable by the Wikipedia community, perhaps this article should just be removed. 188.72.101.17 (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to start sections for /v/ and /a/, just find reliable third-party sources that demonstrate their notability and contextual importance. A full, board-by-board breakdown probably won't happen (when was the last time /cgl/ or /out/ were in the news?), but a list with briefer descriptions could be more okay. 3hunna (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Westley Sullivan / BLP of a juvenile

While reading this article, I found that the following paragraph was added[8] in April of last year (by a user who appears to have become notably problematic before getting bored enough to get him/herself in enough trouble to dump the identity[9],[10]). Curious about the eventual outcome of the alleged events, I googled around and found virtually nothing (even about the alleged events):

On January 21, 2014, an anonymous poster started a thread on /b/ identifying a student named Westley Sullivan who apparently went to the same high school as the poster. The original post included a link to Westley Sullivan's facebook profile, which has since been taken down, and a screenshot of a post which said "if fairview isnt closed tomorrow im going to blow it up", referring to Sullivan's high school, Fairview High School in Fairview, Kentucky. A few anonymous individuals went to Sullivan's facebook profile and found his address, phone number, school ID number, school schedule and teachers, and other personal information. Information like his teachers and ID number had been posted directly, and the more personal information like his address was found in the EXIF data of some of the pictures posted on his profile. These individuals then contacted Fairview school officials and the local police department, as well as the FBI. The next day it was learned that police had arrested Sullivan in his home and he had been charged with 2nd degree terroristic threatening, a Class D felony in Kentucky.

The first source says only that "A 15-year-old has been arrested", with little details and no name.
The second source only defines the charges.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like someone (perhaps the same high school student who makes a comment in the first source about being the one who reported the suspect and includes a screenshot) has used Wikipedia for their own ends again. What a terrible thing to happen. Who could have possibly predicted this... on a 4chan article, no less? (⌣_⌣) [For the record, when someone tries to shoot the messenger: No, I had nothing to do with bringing this about, and once I've warned you about it so you can debate it for a few days, want no part of it.]

Looks like Wikiality keeps getting worse over the years, and this will remain true as long as WP remains mired in rules that encourage gaming the system and making productive editors spend hours undoing the damage that a loose alliance of mutually-supporting POV editors can do in minutes. AGF is a wonderful principle, but any virtue carried too far becomes a vice. Back to you for sports, Jim. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

References

The history of pedobear

pedobear is not a paedorast bear, but a warning/notification applied to notify administration and other users of cp content.

get your facts str8 bef4 u post stuff. -anonymous— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.34.45 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sort of. Pedobear has his own Wikipedia article and he is seen as a mascot.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Picture Update?

When was the last time the picture updated? It doesn't look like it was recently (2009?) and the archive of the talk pages show 2010. Is there a reason that it hasn't been updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedjam (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The details for the image say that the screen shot in the infobox is from 2009.[11] Despite the age, it is still an accurate version of how the current main page looks (August 2015 screen shot here). There is no immediate need to change the infobox image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Re this edit: it is unclear whether the image of the space shuttle is intended to be a permanent feature of the main page, although it has been there for a couple of weeks now. This is the first significant change to the 4chan main page for a long time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The space shuttle is now accompanied by a cat.[12] This has been around for a while, but I'm not going to change the infobox image as yet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The cat used on the current main page of 4chan is taken from this image, sometimes called "stretchy cat". It has Japanese text in the background, so maybe it comes from Japan. Unfortunately, I can't find out much more about this image. Any help is welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Longcat. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this image is fairly well known. It might be worth mentioning in the article, although some people don't like using sources such as knowyourmeme and Urban Dictionary as they are user generated.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If we get started including discussion of images that gain popularity on 4chan, things would spiral out of control :) Also, it looks like this one actually originated on 2chan. If there are sufficient sources, I'd say just create a separate article or include it at List of Internet phenomena. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 4chan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.observer.com/2011/tech/creator-4chan-comes-more-mature-canvas

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right

Reference source: http://fusion.net/story/223175/uncuck-the-right-alt-right-youtube/ Reference source statements: "He says he’s been posting in /pol/, the 4chan and 8chan’s anarchic, often right-leaning “Politically Incorrect” boards, for years. But his decision to get more actively involved with the alt right came this summer “when the cuckservative meme became big and the Alt Right started to explode.”" "The tragedy of the situation, if you can call it that, is that UTR and his alt right pals are fighting a war that only exists in their heads and /pol/ threads." Requested statement to add into article on /pol/: Members of the alt-right particularly use the /pol/ of image boards such as 4chan and 8chan.

One person (referred to in the article as "the creator of Uncuck the Right") is not "members" (plural). That's misrepresentation of a source. It's also an unreliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

::No, it's not misrepresentation because it mentioned that the alt-right uses /pol/. How is it unreliable? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

How is one person considered "members" (plural). Explain that or drop this topic. Sundayclose (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

::::I didn't mean anything illogical, like one person being considered multiple, but rather something else which is similar in meaning. I was referring to how the source said the popular alt-right movement adherent, UTR, is a big poster on /pol/, and how it mentions "alt-right pals" are also on /pol/ with him, he's a big figure in the alt-right, and logically this means the requested statement is true, so it should be included for the article in the /pol/ section here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

One person is not "members". Stop refusing to get the point. Don't misrepresent the source. Move on. This is my last post on this topic. Sundayclose (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::I never said or did that. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be something of an obsession with adding this, even if it involves misrepresenting the sourcing. The source says "He says he’s been posting in /pol/, the 4chan and 8chan’s anarchic, often right-leaning “Politically Incorrect” boards, for years." This is one person, and cannot be used to infer a general case. So it has been rightly reverted again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

And of course it violates WP:UNDUE. When multiple reliable sources back this it might be time to use it, but not now. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

:::I can agree with Doug Weller on that. The other quote said my point anyways. On inference from the first quote, you can infer from a big figure in the alt-right being at the /pol/ on imageboards that others in the alt-right would be there, since /pol/ is what they're all about, and /pol/ is a highly popular board, the alt-right being politically incorrect is backed up by everything out there on the alt-right. At least, it's a very high probability that they'd be there, and there particularly on those boards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

A high probability does not indicate proof. If the source does not directly mention the fact that there is a population of the alt-right on /pol/, then it doesn't support it, regardless of the actual situation one observes on /pol/ (which would be original research). Alcherin (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::Read the source. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a passing reference to one person's online activities and comes nowhere near satisfying WP:DUE. Why is this all so important for this article?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::::Because /pol/ is full of the alt-right. And the other quote about his "alt-right pals" being on there with him? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This is hard to prove, because it is generally difficult to know who posted anything on 4chan. The site is anarchic, loosely moderated and allows anonymous posts. Linking 4chan posts to a real world identity is less than an exact science, probably even less so than linking Wikipedia user names to a real life identity. 4channers rarely say things like "Hi, I'm John Smith of alt-right". 4chan does have a tendency to bias towards right wing viewpoints (some people would say that this is putting it mildly) but the alt-right connection still has problems with WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I looked carefully and there does not seem to be reliable sources to make this point. I think, in terms of original research, you are probably correct, but reliable sources have not connected the alt-right and /pol/ yet. The closest is some sources that connect the alt-right with cuckservative, and some other sources that connect cuckservative with /pol/. However, that's synthesis, so I think we should we wait on this point for the time being. Denarivs (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Connor Machiavelli turned out to be a sockpuppet, so I've struck through his edits. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2016

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current "October 1, 2003" to {start date and age|2003|10|1} to correspond to 4chan's official launch date?

"On July 26, 2009, AT&T's DSL branch temporarily blocked access to the img.4chan.org domain (host of /b/ and /r9k/), which was initially believed to be an attempt at Internet censorship, and met with hostility on 4chan's part"

img.4chan.org is not a host for any board on 4chan. i.4cdn.org is the new unified host. The sentence should reflect img.4chan.org is the former host.

please fix this and HEIL TRUMP

173.73.242.76 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Datbubblegumdoe^{[talk – contribs]} 13:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Longcat retired?

Longcat and the space shuttle have been on the 4chan main page continuously since last December, but in the past few days have been replaced by different images, eg here. I'm not sure if the infobox image needs updating, but was never convinced that the space shuttle and cat were intended to be permanent features of the main page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate Section

The Gamergate section states that the allegations against Zoe Quinn are false. This needs to be fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.15.146 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The citation is from a rather dubious source too. The larger problem however, has been the successful recasting of the story by Gawker and it's media allies. Twisting it from one of popular protests against blatant journalistic malfeasance and industry collusion, into some sort of anti-feminist outburst. It's hard to get proper cites, when the miscreants hold all the microphones. 2001:56A:F567:3700:9C8D:A804:4210:CC48 (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ref idea

• https://mic.com/articles/157545/how-4chan-a-small-anime-forum-became-donald-trump-s-most-rabid-fanbase

czar 02:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump saga

Re this edit: I agree that there is WP:RECENTISM here and that 4chan's role in the Donald Trump saga is largely speculative and may be wrong anyway. Unless firm evidence emerges that 4chan is involved, it isn't worth mentioning it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)