Talk:4chan/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Murder of a 9 year old in Herne, Germany

At the moment there is an ongoing case in Germany where a 9 year old boy where murdered by 19 year old Marcel Hesse. He is still on the run. And there murder was leaked thru /b/ don't know if this is worth for controversial part of the Wiki. Nimbrod (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It's all a bit confused at the moment. There is some coverage here, but 4chan is not the dark web and you don't need Tor (anonymity network) to visit 4chan. People are discussing this on /b/ at the moment, but I haven't seen any alleged photos or videos. This needs reliable sourcing to avoid problems with WP:NOTNEWS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Within German Facebook pages there is an archive link to that thread on 4chan. But I'm not sure if I should post this here. Nimbrod (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I've read that he originally posted the photos or videos on WhatsApp and they were subsequently reposted on 4chan. However, without reliable sourcing it isn't suitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Further coverage here and here, but neither mentions 4chan by name. As with similar cases in the past, the link to 4chan may be rather tenuous. People have discussed this on /b/, but it doesn't seem to be the primary source of the photos or videos.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Some coverage here (in German) which does mention 4chan. So far the media coverage of this has been pretty poor and confusing, but it is important because of the parallels with the Luka Magnotta case. When this first arrived at 4chan, some people thought it was a hoax, but it wasn't. At the time of writing, police are still looking for the 19-year-old allegedly responsible, so WP:BLPCRIME applies here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Marcel Hesse has been arrested.[1] After his arrest, a second body was found. The BBC news story says "Mr Hesse is alleged to have boasted in an online chat-room about also murdering a woman. The body found on Thursday was male, a police spokesman said." This does fit in with some of the posts that were made on 4chan, but it is still early days. Nevertheless, when further facts emerge, this will probably be worth adding to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I read this too. As far as I understood it he posted after the secound murder Picturesof him in the kitchen of the victim. The people were all crazy. got friends from thst area and they were all in state of emergency. special those with kids as the same age as the first victim. a sidenote I read in local news about it the stepfather of the first victim is a Bandidos Member and they allready shout out that they want revange for this. This is also a reason why they don't say a single word where he is imprissioned. That is some real insane stuff. Nimbrod (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

References

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

2017 Westminster attack

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

• The photo of the gun comes from this December 2010 forum thread, and the attacker did not have a gun. The post "warning" of the attack was made from a Danish IP address.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

2015 Wilfrid Laurier University threat and 2014 terrorism arrest

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

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

The Jersey incident was discussed at Talk:4chan/Archive_16#Sheik_Suleman_al-Britani:. Due to the fact that the man had mental health issues and received a non-custodial sentence, it probably isn't fair or necessary to mention this in the article. There are various incidents where people have posted threats on 4chan, but it would run into problems with WP:NOTNEWS unless there is significant long term notability. It was claimed initially that the Umpqua Community College shooting was predicted in a 4chan post, but this never came to anything and the claim is now seen as dubious. The Wilfrid Laurier University threat may well have been a hoax, so I'm not sure if it worth mentioning in the article, as it would give the impression that the incident was more significant than it was.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

However, the article at present contains a short paragraph on a 2009 Swedish threat (St Eskils Gymnasium) that also came to nothing, with the suspect also being released after saying it was a joke, not unlike the Wilfrid Laurier case. Does this somehow have long-term notability? Alcherin (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

People are posting threats as trolling pranks all the time on 4chan, often in obtuse language. There are often bomb hoax threats against airlines on Twitter, and it is almost invariably a hoax because if you were going to blow up a plane, you wouldn't be boasting about it on Twitter beforehand, like these idiots.[2][3] This is a fairly common event on Twitter, but for some reason the media regards 4chan hoaxes and pranks as more dangerous. The Wilfrid Laurier University incident is interesting because the British man who was arrested did not actually make the threat, but reposted on Twitter something that he had seen on 4chan (lesson: what happens on 4chan stays on 4chan). This is similar to the Twitter joke trial. The regulars on 4chan are so laid back about hoax threats that they initially regarded the Marcel Hesse incident (see above) as yet another hoax, but it wasn't. The Wilfrid Laurier University incident may be worth mentioning in the article because it highlight's 4chan's culture of hoax threats which are not meant to be taken seriously (known as grinch posting), but which could easily lead to an arrest if other people read the threat and did not know about 4chan's culture.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hwndu and Timmy

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

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

Seems a little biased

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like to summarise the bias of this article:

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

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

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

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

/pol/ as "politically incorrect"

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

Undue weight granted to /pol/

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

Bias of /pol/ section

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

Cheers,

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

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

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

I propose to add the following after the first sentence:

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2017

Request to change the wording of this sentence from The site has been linked to Internet subcultures and activism, most notably Anonymous, the alt-right and Project Chanology. To The site has been linked to various Internet subcultures and activism groups, most notably Anonymous, the alt-right and Project Chanology. Why? Because it sounds better. 2600:100B:B11D:59BE:18A1:BAC5:1CE0:49DB (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: Consensus is not required for non controversial changes. And I think that this counts. 73.5.15.234 (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Identification of suspect in bike lock assault

This may be notable enough to be included in the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/05/29/a-man-clobbered-trump-supporters-with-a-bike-lock-the-internet-went-looking-for-him/?utm_term=.76fd6398c514

71.182.241.158 (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting, but it has problems with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. My favourite example (which isn't in the article) is here, where a very stupid employee at a Burger King in Cleveland, Ohio got himself fired in 2012 after being outed on 4chan.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

What is Gamergate?

Currently, the gamergate section describes it as a movement which collects donations for video games and invents video game characters. Half of the paragraph is dedicated to these minor details, and the harassment for which gamergate is primarily known is not mentioned.

Looking at the Gamergate_controversy wiki article - which is the result of a long search for consensus -, we can see that it is primarily a harassment campaign. The article does not mention game characters, and correctly puts the donations in context: It was a PR campaign.

This is also how the sources given in this article present the issue. The first is an article about the harassment which only mentions the game character in passing (it doesn't mention donations). The second is about the character, but prominently discusses the harassment. About the character and the donations, it says it was done out of "spite", because "4chan’s gaming community [...] developed a taste for blood", and in their own words to "troll everyone", including the "tards in the media".

As it is, this is a clear case of false balance, which isn't supported by the given sources.

I already suggested an easy way to fix this (see above). I would like to try to find a consensus on this, so this article represents the current state of notable sources. Zukorrom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This post is Art

the sale didn't complete and the piece was re-listed and sold for $102.50 plus $17.08 http://www.ebay.com/itm/-/221518212263? Se non è vero è ben trovato — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.23.16 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

As Andy Warhol said, "Art is what you can get away with."[5] This item was on eBay in 2014 and it received a fair amount of media coverage at the time. This is in the article, but what you are saying is that the winning bid of $90,900 didn't go through (unsurprisingly perhaps). This has an element of WP:OR, because the eBay listing on its own is not a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• The original eBay listing where the 4chan post sold for $90,900 is here. The seller was xhacker02 in New York. The bidding history is here. As for whether the $90,900 was ever paid, this is harder to say, but one of the problems with spoof items on eBay is that they tend to attract spoof bids as well.[6]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Reference Request

Request for a proper reference to support this statement in the /pol/ section: "/pol/ was created in October 2011 as a rebranding of 4chan's news board, /new/." The reference given makes no mention of /pol/ or /new/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy Graham (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Article is outdated

This article is outdated and looks like it was written years ago and barely updated to house the more recent parts of 4chan history. Many of the most mentioned memes such as LOLCATS were part of a long since passed era in 4chan history and are not longer used on 4chan. Many modern memes and events devised on 4chan are barely mentioned if not at all. While notable memories of 4chan should always exist here, the lack of maintenance on this article regarding the changes in 4chan culture and recent history really gets to me. This is not a call to completely reform the article, just a call to update the article -- Blysbane (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

Re this edit: the image of Longcat and the space shuttle went a long time ago. Also, there is no need to show images which have been blanked out. Here is a screenshot of the 4chan main page as of 2 January 2018.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• The previous image got deleted but the space shuttle image is very out of date. Since the infobox image is a screen shot of a web page it requires fair use and should not be on Commons. So when I've got time I'll upload the current main page with a fair use rationale.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

4chan is also a hotbed of conspiracy theories (e.g. Pizzagate and the recent claims that one of the students speaking out about the Florida high school shooting is actually a paid actor. Shouldn't this aspect of 4chan be mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.66.123 (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It depends. Pretty much every conspiracy theory turns up at 4chan, but it wouldn't be practical to mention all of them. It becomes notable if 4chan played a significant part in creating or propagating the theory. This happened with the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where a /pol/ thread falsely identified the gunman and this picked up media coverage.[7] This led to Google changing its system for trending results.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Good Accurate Article, given the circumstances.

This is a very well put together article given that there really is not that much information present. Most of the facts are supported with articles to back them up. An example of this is in reference to the high profile hacks that have materialized from 4chan. The news links for the different adventures of the site still work, and the article itself is definitely neutral. This is important because it is difficult to find a vast amount of information on the site that is more factual than anecdotal.

Jabjab444 (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Abdulle june 20, 2018Jabjab444 (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Eric M. Radulovic

Re this edit: as they say on 4chan, "It's Still Shitposting Even If You Are Being Ironic".[8] 4chan is also famous for the disclaimer that it gives, which is "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact". However, when it comes to specific threats of violence, saying that it is irony is not going to impress law enforcement.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

On any User releated criminal activity

Why are there sections dedicated to this? It's not really relevant to 4chan in my humble opinion, and certainly not of encyclopedic reference to that. Honestly that stuff falls more under Encyclopedia Dramatica territory and I propose a full removal of those sections here. QuillOmega0 (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

4chan doesn't pick up much mainstream media coverage, and when it does, it is usually related to some controversy such as the David Kalac incident.[9] This might give a misleading impression, but it would run into problems with WP:NOTCENSORED to remove all of the controversies.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

No mention of Alt-Right subculture in the 2 sources, requesting removal of the mention of the group.

Long story short, I saw the mention of "Alt-right" as a subculture of 4chan, I thought it was suspicious since I've never heard of the alt-right taking refuge on 4chan, so I looked at the 2 sources provided. To my surprise (yes I'm using that ironically), no mention of the alt-right in the articles. I request that the group's mention be deleted, since no credible source has been provided. 216.167.232.155 (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right movements and ideologies do have a marked presence on 4chan, more particularly on the "Politically Incorrect" board (being recieved, shunned or tolerated to varying degrees on other boards). While the sources provided may be erroneous I'm quite certain there must be sources that'd support this. 87.223.3.46 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Greentexting redirect

Searching for Greentexting redirects here. While appropiate, considering the origins of greentexts as a writing style, the article makes no mentions of greentexts at all. I suggest either a section be added or the redirect be removed so a separate article can be made at some point. As an aside, I'd like to mention that "Greentext" as a term is far more common in usage than "Greentexting", and should be replaced as to fit the termo most users would use to search for this. 87.223.3.46 (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a problem that "greentexting" doesn't explain what this is once you have reached this article. There is not much point in having the redirect under these circumstances. It means quoting or telling a story in green text, as explained here:[10][11]. It's one of the popular features of 4chan threads, but isn't explained here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Updating the culture/memes talking points

A lot of the mentions of the memes that 4chan has created or popularised feels older and fails to meantion more recent examples.

yes, for e.g.: pepe the frog isn't even mentioned in this page, but it should be, instead it's just mentioned at the bottom as a related article, but this is just... wrong.188.25.231.156 (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Advancement of Science

I'm no wikipedist, but recently I came upon interesting article about how one anonymous user of 4chan advanced permutation problem. It would be neat if some better encyclopedist could incorporate it into article so it shows that 4chan is not just about shitposting 109.81.211.130 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

Put in words "now infamous" to clarify that it is now known for the damage it has done, especially with Jessi Slaughter.UpWithJimmy (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC) UpWithJimmy (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There is some coverage of the Jessi Slaughter incident here and here. It is believed that 4chan helped to fan the flames of the controversy with further trolling. As for whether it made 4chan infamous, it was probably infamous already.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2019

"4chan is a now infamous website".

I want that added to the intro paragraph! UpWithJimmy (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. aboideau^talk 18:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a repeat of the section above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

New article for /b/

Check it out at /b/. If anyone has ideas about moving content from here to there then post to Talk:/b/.

The archives here are substantial and many discussions here talk about /b/. I read some but not all of them. If anyone is aware of pending editorial issues to sort out with /b/ then please post them on the talk page there.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2019

Cite #55 is offensive and need to be changed. 2001:EE0:4081:2918:DE3:D8E2:C81C:4422 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Benjamin (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I checked the cite just to make sure that nothing grossly offensive or potentially illegal was in it, and there doesn't seem to be. Apart from being titled "HIRO WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING" it isn't that bad, it is routine 4chan stuff.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism template

There is a problem here, because people are going to read the text of the article and ask "But why is the site antisemitic?" Templates, categories etc should explain material that is discussed within the article. 4chan is the home of the Happy Merchant, but it is hard to say this because Know Your Meme is not considered a reliable source. Anyway, templates should not make statements that cannot be supported by the text and citations in the article. Anitisemitism is in the alt-right template at the bottom of the page, and this has various links explaining the type of content on the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have also removed 4chan from the Antisemitism template if it is not to be included in the article. Lmatt (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It isn't in dispute that there is a ton of antisemitic material on the site, but there is also material attacking blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, anyone the alt-right dislikes. The problem with this edit is that it gives excessive prominence to something that is not discussed and cited in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

My next question is obvious, I should think: Why isn't it discussed in the article? I don't buy the "well, they hate everyone equally, so they're not really 'antisemitic per se'" argument; that's cheap beef.--Jorm (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jorm: It appears that you added the template to this article in order to justify this edit to the Antisemitism sidebar. I have partially reverted your edit, please discuss here if you think a link to 4chan should be in the template. Lmatt (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a sourcing problem here. I couldn't find any article other than the one on Know Your Meme discussing the Happy Merchant and its link to 4chan. I also think that the reverted edit took up a large amount of space explaining something that is in the alt-right template.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

According to Rolling Stone Magazine, 4chan is important in incubating Neo-Nazis

I think for the neutrality of the article this should be added. Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-measure-of-hate-on-4chan-627922/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberlin2 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019

add /mu/ to list of notable imageboards Include connections in this to Neutral Milk Hotel, the /mu/core list, Anthony Fantano, Piero Scaruffi, and RateYourMusic 2601:186:4301:CDE0:C4F5:2365:4F7A:6F3 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what you want to add. In any case, there is no main article for "/mu/" as there are for the other subsections here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

boards.4channel.org/mu/ is the Music board and it may not be one of the more notable ones, this is subjective. Some people get annoyed when most of the focus is placed on /pol/ and /b/, but this is where most of the media coverage has occurred.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

4chan calls an airstrike

Apparently, 4chan found a syrian rebellion camp, called an airstrike on it. They also found an ISIS training site. Bit murky, but it certainly seems possible. --SkynetPR (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This occurred back in May 2016 and it is sourced (not ideally) here and here. As you say, it's a bit murky.---♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The introduction is not neutral

It should be mentioned in the first five sentences that 4chan is closely linked to right-wing extremism, misogyny and several terrorist attacks. It is also not clear why the German Domestic Intelligence Agency officially classifies the site as an extremist platform. It is quite clear to anyone who knows the site and has followed the news of the last few years that there is a more than coincidental connection between 4chan and right-wing extremism from the sources and the article unfortunately the introduction does not show this yet. I would suggest that the introduction should read: "The website has become internationally known for its links to right-wing extremist and misogynist terror". The sentence "Launched by Christopher Poole in October 2003, the site was created as a counterpart to the Japanese imageboard Futaba Channel, also known as 2chan." could be postponed a bit, since it is certainly interesting, but the historical context of origin is probably secondary for most people who deal with 4chan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberlin2 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no denying that /b/and /pol/ contain their fair share of alt-right material. However, 4chan was not set up specifically to promote far right views. Users of the other boards tend to be annoyed by the constant media focus on /b/and /pol/. Although the article needs to look at the controversies caused by the posting of alt-right material, it would be misleading to suggest that this is the site's raison d'être.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Heya, I'm working on an ongoing project to improve and bring up to date this article. I personally have a number of problems with the lead, but I'm afraid they aren't problems that I share with you. To concur with IanMacM, yes /pol/ has played a certain role in 4chan's reputation, and it's definitely worth that this article candidly and fairly covers it. However, with respect to what a lead is meant to achieve, it is not the reason why 4chan is notable. It would be as unfair as defining the notability of reddit in its lead by r/the_donald. It would promote quite an ignorant, not very uniform view of 4chan. 4chan is a sprawling community, a fact that is supported by the number different topics this article and their sources. It is a community that has shaped the language of the internet, made My Little Pony a cultural phenomenon, invented rickrolling, and - yes - has unfortunately promoted anti-semitism and has controlled parts US political discourse. Even these handful of things don't paint the fully picture, the reality is that 4chan is actually quite mundane most of the time. I would invite you to visit a board like Papercraft & Origami (/po/) where users solicit PDF instructions from each other, or Toys (/toy/) where adults take pictures of and talk about their favourite stuffed animals. That's the less sensational reality. JAYFAX (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding other message boards

Hey guys, I was taking a look at the notable imageboards, and while of course /pol/ and /b/ are hot topics with them being as controversial as they are, there is not really reference to the other message boards at all, besides the quick mention of the varying topics in the intro. I think it would help to the neutrality of the article if there was a quick blurb or a small section on its own on a few of the other larger imageboards on 4chan it would really help support that 4chan is not entirely alt-right neo-nazis. Madden4400 (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's why I added the MLP section (which covers /co/ and /mlp/, of course) to give a balanced picture. If you have any reliable sources that gives notability to other boards, feel free to link to them and maybe I or someone can to a writeup. JAYFAX (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. For example, I really like the Food & Cooking board at /ck/ but cannot recall any occasion when it was mentioned by a reliable source. There is inevitably a media bias toward /pol/ and /b/ because that is where the drama occurs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality issues in history section

First, my COI. See my user page, I'm Fredrick Brennan. This can be seen as a COI due to my longstanding feud with Jim Watkins over 8chan. However, I've edited for years at this point and know our policies well. Moving on...

As I've written at Talk:2channel#Severe neutrality problems, Nishimura's claims not being given enough weight, Nishimura's claims have not been given a fair shake here at Wikipedia. Until recently, this problem was extremely severe over at 2channel—however, after a recent rewrite by me and several rounds of review, things are looking much better there now. Unfortunately, some of the problematic phrashing from there has been copied here, although here we have some "sources", which I'll discuss soon. First, let me reiterate what I wrote on Talk:2channel :

• The 2channel post is a WP:SPS, period. Watkins is alleging Nishimura had financial difficulties. We cannot in good conscience use it to say that there actually were financial difficulties; Nishimura managed to buy 4chan soon after. How did he do that if he was broke? In any event, Nishimura denies this in his legal briefs; we must not give undue weight to this WP:SPS. So, as I can't see anyone disagreeing with this, I've already put alleged.

Now, the supposedly sourced second half of the line, a series of scandals involving Nishimura's alleged data mining and sales of 2channel personal user data to political parties. This entire line and the two "sources" ought to be cut.

First, Livedoor News. Livedoor News can absolutely be a reliable source at times, in the same way HuffPost or Forbes can be, no doubt about that. However, in this case, we need to use caution. If the LDP was really a customer of 2channel's, (paying for post deletions,) why didn't Asahi, Yomiuri, etc., report that? Certainly this would have been frontpage news in a national newspaper, we shouldn't need to rely on a second-tier source. But my second reason is more damning: the link is broken. Livedoor News has deleted the body of the article, for 提供社の都合により, literally, "due to circumstances of the provider (Livedoor)". Knowing what I know about Japan, this could mean Hiroyuki, or someone else, called the post libel, and they couldn't back it up; that explanation makes most sense to me.

Second, Echo News. Echo News is absolutely, 100% not a reliable source for this and is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia on any 2channel-related or Nishimura/Watkins feud-related statement. Even over at wikibooks:2ch Chronicle/Repossession they recognize the bias in this source. The source basically served only to back up Watkins, it hasn't written anything since 2015. I have many private reasons for knowing this source is unreliable, but of course those aren't proof here; I just hope that the obvious bias is enough.

If you ask me, LDP allegedly being a "client" of 2channel is typical channer conspiracy theory bullshit that they managed to get a quasi-RS to pick up before even their editors realized it was fake. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 13:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto:  Done. Seemed to be non-reliable sourcing upon my review, as well. — Goszei (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Goszei:, your edit has left the article without a definition for the referenced named "echo". Readers of the article now see "Cite error: The named reference echo was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." in the references seection because you deleted the definition of the "echo" reference, but there is one more usage of that reference in the article. Should that second reference also be removed and replaced with a reliable source, or is the source your removed valid for that usage? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: Ah, I missed that. The other citations in the same sentence state that Watkins is an "ex-US Army officer", so I have now removed the "echo" cite. — Goszei (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Goszei:! But now I'm confused. What reference is left that documents this Jim guy is an ex-army officer? The Japan Times article doesn't mention it and the itmedia article doesn't mention it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post has a report which states he was a helicopter repairman in the US Army, that's what I used on 2channel. https://washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/12/helicopter-repairman-leader-internets-darkest-reaches-life-times-chan-owner-jim-watkins/ Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 17:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: My mistake, I have added this WaPo source as proof for that particular claim. — Goszei (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! All sorted. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

Please remove "The posts are under review." from this element:

"A report of Jeffrey Epstein's death was posted on /pol/ around 40 minutes before ABC News broke the news. The unidentified person who made the posts may have been a first responder, in violation of privacy law. The posts are under review."

The source speaks of the review in the past tense, so "are" is no longer appropriate. I'm guessing that the review is a flash-in-the-pan incident that doesn't really matter, but if you think it's important to mention the review, you could change it to "...law, prompting a review by the the New York City Fire Department." 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:553:E4EC:55A5:6B1C (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, please change the citation to the page I linked. Epstein died in August 2019, so even the first version of the source can't be from January 3, 2018. The source's datestamp says "Last updated on August 13, 2019, at 1:57 p.m. ET. Posted on August 13, 2019, at 12:10 p.m. ET." 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:553:E4EC:55A5:6B1C (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Done: Thanks for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein and a corpse's right to privacy?

This caught me off-guard from the section Death of Jeffrey Epstein:

A report of Jeffrey Epstein's death was posted on /pol/ around 40 minutes before ABC News broke the news. The unidentified person who made the posts may have been a first responder, in violation of privacy law, prompting a review by the New York City Fire Department.

Dead people don't have a right to privacy. They are dead. They don't have a right to do other things either, like vote in an election. They are dead. When Christa McAuliffe died in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, news organizations began obtaining her school transcripts because she no longer had a right to privacy. Because she was dead.

In fact, the cited source FDNY reviews reports of Epstein death leaked on 4Chan does not even use the word privacy in the article.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Buzzfeed News article did say that, but I didn't find other more reputable sources making the claim, so it was easy enough just to remove. Regardless, the fire department later confirmed it didn't come from them anyway (I updated the article to reflect that), so it's not like it matters so much. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Dictionary Link to Wiktionary

Xprrt5 is continually removing the link without discussion. I invite them here to discuss this change! Jorm (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I explained my edits. You have not explained yours. Xprrt5 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, first, I didn't have to explain a the first revert. We don't have to remove links for that. If you feel that the word is inappropriate or too high brow for people to read, then you can change the language or suggest a change. You were told to go to the talk page several times to have this conversation but you decided to bully yourself through. --Jorm (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, first, I didn't have to explain a the first revert - yes, you did.

If you feel that the word is inappropriate or too high brow for people to read, then you can change the language or suggest a change. - I don't think it is too highbrow for people to read; you do. I did change the language; you reverted that as well. Why exactly are you so desperate to have that one single word link to a dictionary definition? I don't believe you have any coherent reason at all. You just fancied an edit war. Xprrt5 (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't usually be be necessary to give Wiktionary links and it is not commonplace to do this. How about linking to Ephemera instead? The point that the article here is trying to make is that the threads on the popular boards on 4chan such as /b/ and /pol/ don't last very long, usually a day or so at most.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

All the indications are that User:Jorm's motivation in starting this dispute was a desire to bully, not to make an article better. So I'm not surprised at all that they have been unable to explain why they thought "ephemeral" should have a dictionary link. Linking to ephemera sounds good. Xprrt5 (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You should probably refrain from ascribing bad faith motivations to me. Jorm (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If you were acting in good faith, you would not have started off by undoing my edit without explanation. The very first thing you would have done, if acting in good faith, would have been to indicate why you thought a dictionary link to one particular word was useful. But at no point have you offered any reason why you wanted this dictionary link, and you even made a false report to a noticeboard in an attempt to get me blocked. What aspect of your behaviour indicates good faith, exactly? Xprrt5 (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur with User ianmacm, keep the word, link to the Wikipedia article about ephemera. Joe (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

4Chan is NOT anonymous and that is not backed up by the source.

"4chan is the original and largest English-language image board with over 20 million unique visitors monthly. Our boards cover a wide array of interests, including Video Games, Anime, Television, Film, Comics, Technology, Fitness, and Cars."

You can be anonymous but 4chan is a collection of imageboards where users have the OPTION to be anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.197.200 (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

People are not required to hand over significant personal details to post on 4chan (they aren't on Wikipedia either). It's unusual for 4chan posters to say much about their real world identities. 4chan is strict about preventing posts from Tor and VPNs, because they know that this could be misused.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Anonymity is one of the most critical, fundamental principles of 4chan. Moot concertedly and vigilantly talked about anonymity in the few interviews he accepted so that no one would forget it, and those interviews are present in the sources of this article. JAYFAX (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

People who post on 4chan are anonymous provided that they do not do anything that violates US law. 4chan neither encourages nor condones doing this, and will co-operate with the the authorities if a valid request is made through law enforcement. It is not quite the "anything goes" site that it is sometimes portrayed as in the media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It 100% is as anything goes as it's portrayed, and you are not strict on vpns at all, the entirety of the site uses them, and then pay you for 4chan passes just to ban dodge. Users break the law on the site every other day. Even on your video game section /v/ people are allowed to openly threaten groups of people or races, post murders, post child porn, hate speech, dox people, organize raids on other sites and your mods do absolutely nothing about it because you hire mods with these same sentiments. Who let these foul threads stay up for hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.144.195 (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages are not for general discussion. JAYFAX (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Virgin, Chad, Stacy to the /r9k/ section

The Virgin, Chad, and Stacy archetypes are pretty famous and the /r9k/ section is quite short given how well-known it is.

Forgonemirage (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a question of finding reliable sources that mention these terms in the context of 4chan. This is difficult, but this source does mention them, but not 4chan.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

OK symbol

no mention that the idea that the OK symbol was a "white power" sign started as a parody on 4chan? of course not. 166.181.82.125 (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This is mentioned in some detail at OK_gesture#White_power_symbol and it is probably more on topic there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article in need of review

As part of the ongoing project WP:URFA/2020, that aims to identify and draw attention to older Featured Articles that may not meet the current Featured Article criteria, I'm leaving this brief review of the article.

This is an older Featured Article that has not been reviewed since its promotion in 2008.

• The article fails criteria 1. c) of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, since it isn't "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". From a quick scan of Google Scholar, I can spot several well-cited academic works that are not being used here.
• There's an over reliance on sources closely related to the subject.
• The article feels dated, as the bulk of the sources are dated before 2012 - were there any changes to the way the website operates or its features?
• There are several short subsections that either need to be expanded or merged into broader subsections/topics, for instance in the "ISP bans" section.
• The History section is not in chronological order, since it reverts back to 2008-2010 in the Poole subsection.
• There's some trivia going around, with the "Internet attacks" subsection looking like a list of every time the website makes the news.
• What is the purpose of the "Other media attention" subsection? That information can be easily merged into other sections.

In short, I'd say that this article needs to present a broader view of the website, by incorporating the relevant literature that is available, instead of being a blow-by-blow account of every single time the website hits the news. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

The new Alexa ranking for 4chan is #1,354 different from #1,042 2603:7000:6044:6100:2531:5E5A:AE1:AB42 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Alexa Internet is due to end its service in May this year, so I'm not sure what will happen to all of the rankings after that.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Tge

Cfjan 2601:280:4F01:33B0:E16E:763F:DAC2:E1A4 (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Abundance of Triva

Broadly speaking, there's an abundance of trivia. To agree with RD, I elect that some sub-sections need to be merged or deleted. From my perspective, these sections (which do not document that which is foundational to the website's history or perception) are /sci/, the entirety of other media appearances Cyberbullying Murder in Port Orchard, Washington and Bianca Devins murder. Writing to gather consensus on merging and/or deleting. DMT Biscuit (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Having edited the section down, I nominate /mu to this section. DMT Biscuit (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This feels uncomfortably like "let's purge the page of anything that suggests 4chan is more than neo-Nazis". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

"Registration: None available (except for staff)"

Shouldn't this be changed? 4chan passes would seem to count as registration. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

According to the site's FAQ, "No user registration process is available. If you're worried about somebody impersonating you, consider using a tripcode to help validate your identity." A 4chan pass "allows users to bypass typing a CAPTCHA verification when posting and reporting posts on the 4chan image and discussion boards. Passes cost $20 per year, which is about $1.67 per month." This isn't quite the same as user registration, so I think that the wording in the article is correct. The tripcode can act as a sort of unofficial user account, but it is not possible to have a conventional username/password account on the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Burger King incident

I'm not sure why this hasn't been added, but back in 2012 a Burger King employee posted a picture of himself standing in lettuce on the site and had gotten fired as a result. Whether this fits better on this page or Burger King I'm not sure about though I'm leaning closer to here as it has a section on media attention already.

There's also three sources.

References

172.112.210.32 (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 4chan's main page.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Bianca Devins murder

There is little relevance between the murder and 4chan so someone would have to explain to me why this merits inclusion. Willbb234 23:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wired article

A new article in Wired today that may be relevant here How a Major Toy Company Kept 4chan Online. Izno (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Bookmarking this here as well: Inside 4chan’s Top-Secret Moderation Machine. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

GET

"A 'GET' occurs when a post's number ends in a special number, such as 12345678, 22222222, or every millionth post."

This doesn't sound right to me, since 12345678 does not "end in a special number"; rather, it is the entire sequence of digits that is "special". 93.72.49.123 (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2023

It says that 4chan was created 19 years ago in the info box on the top right. As of today, it was created 20 years ago. I propose to edit that. (not a)Dr Frederick (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see above, template will update itself Cannolis (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2023 (2)

4chan is 20 years old, guise. Please fix! She's not 19 anymore! Owen (real) (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see above.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 14:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Why was this removed?

In August 2018, Diablo Valley College ethics professor Eric Clanton was sentenced to zero time in prison after he used a metal bike lock to assault the heads of seven Donald Trump supporters, even though there was video proof. Clanton had tried to hide his identity, but amateur sleuths from 4chan were able to accurately identify him, and his identity was later confirmed by police using forensic evidence.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

As user:Largely Legible Layman said in their summary: "unencyclopedic addition loaded with prejudiced language" Meters (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Clearly an unacceptable addition as written. For one, I see in the headline of the SF Chronicle that Clanton got sentenced to three years of probation, but that wasn't included in your for some reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you, or someone else, be willing to suggest a more objective way to include it? I think it's highly notable that 4chan's investigative activities were independently confirmed by the police, and led to a conviction. I think the info should be included, even if it's not in the manner with which I had written it. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It's highly notable that 4chan's investigative activities were independently confirmed by the police, and led to a conviction. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

References

/g/-technology board?

Is /g/ not notable enough? Tusharhero (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's sourcing as ever. Also, it isn't practical to mention every board as there are so many.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)