Talk:4chan/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Pedobear picture

I just stumbled across this page and as I looked down I saw the picture of Pedobear and tried looking for some info about this pedobear in the article but couldnt find a thing. Im sure this 'Pedobear' must have something to do with the page but this should really be explained or the picture taken down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.48.132 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Without context, it's just confusing (not to mention the image's questionable source). Removed accordingly. -kotra (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rules of the internet

I'm sorry but as an early Lurker of 4chan's /b/, I do believe that we should respects /b/s rules and do not talk about /b/. I would hope for the section for /b/ to be taken down and simply place the first 2 rules of the internet "DO NOT TALK ABOUT /b/" Just respect for the site and all that you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastshift (talk • contribs) 00:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia doesn't work that way. I'm sure the Church of Scientology doesn't want us to have an article on Xenu, but we have it because it's notable. So is /b/, as evidenced by the many sources cited in that section. We can't play favorites. -kotra (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work like that, and the rules only apply to raids...Any real "early lurker" would know that. If nobody talked about /b/, nobody would know about /b/...It's not some kind of secret club. rzrscm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

7-5-09?

No mention yet of the #gorillapenis on twitter? Leviathanlover (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Does it help readers understand what 4chan is? If not, then it's not likely to be added. Just ask the /b/tards who keep arguing for SIHULM in List of Pokémon (241-260). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think any of the Media section helps people to understand what 4chan is, but the validity of that section is not up for debate. I would say a malicious attack on a social networking site would be considered something to put on that section of the page. I don't think the Youtube Porn Day paragraph is any better at explaining what 4chan is, unless everyone who goes to the site is a porn posting music video lover. Just a thought. Leviathanlover (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

4chan under DDOS attack..

I'm curious, they've been under DDOS attack for 3 days, and yet wikipedia doesn't say anything about it? 68.191.160.109 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If it stays down for over a week, I am sure someone will put something up on it 75.26.244.181 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And nothing of value was lost. --Falcon8765 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sites get DDoS'd daily. Even the US Gov't's sites. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

How often is a site shut down under a sustained week long DDOS attack?99.147.205.15 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I blame the Koreans. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 20:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I blame swine flu. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

considering it IS one of the biggest sites on the net, and the fact its STILL down, maybe its time for a mention on the page? 75.26.244.181 (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's time for a mention on this page when it's reported in some reliable independent source. If we post things because we notice that they're true, that's original research. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Need it be independent? The status page would seem to be authoritative: [1]. --69.12.157.118 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... you need independent sources to establish notability in the first place, but after that, primary sources can be used to an extent. I'd say, either (a) go for it and see what happens, or (b) ask them over at [[WP:... actually, just go for it and see what happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope no one's considering updating the 4chan article on Wikipedia with this DDoS attack, because if they are, they have several other attacks that lasted much longer than this to report first. This is neither the first or the worst attack 4chan has received, it doesn't deserve to be recorded. -Bendilin^(talk) 02:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Death hoaxes

Things like that get posted rather frequently. I just don't see how the Emma Watson case is notable. Perhaps a more general statement about death hoaxes would be preferable in this case. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{worst summer • ever}} 19:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

AT&T Block

Any chance of someone adding AT&T blocking access to img.4chan.org? Article on TechCrunch Reddit thread Bylebog (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Please do add coverage for this. I myself am an AT&T customer and kept thinking that someone DDoSed /b/. This is a massive encroachment on everyone on the internet's rights. Today /b/, tomorrow any site that doesn't pay up to ATT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.48.107 (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a one-liner about the block, citing the Tech Crunch coverage; please feel free to add more content in the article and to make suggestions here. However, Make sure all content is sourced, and relevant. There really aren't a lot of facts about this yet, and not a ton of reputable secondary sources. The signal-to-noise ratio on this is going to be really low for the next couple of days, so until AT&T makes a statement, or some more in-depth coverage emerges, let's watch our footing on this issue. JDoorjam JDiscourse 04:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Some people on Reddit have contacted AT&T; apparently AT&T customers' computers were repeatedly DDoS'ing 4chan (likely thru virii or botnets), driving up bandwidth and prompting them to block 4chan for its own sake. However, unless we have some definitive statement by AT&T confirming this we can't source it because Reddit comments aren't reliable sources. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 06:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that first ATT shut off service, then Cogent did, I'm guessing it's due to a really big DDOS, so before everyone goes crazy about this, lets settle a few days and watch it play out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datatable (talk • contribs) 09:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep cool. Stay civil. Stick to the facts. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 10:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

AT&T's official statement — 69.232.182.35 (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Figured as much that it was DDoS related. Didn't figure it was the reverse of what I'd read at Reddit. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a small typo in this section; spaming should obviously be spamming --Blikkie (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Cause of AT&T Block

this article claims that anontalk or "alm" is responsible for a ddos "spoofing 4chan" causing the att blackout but this is not what was released by moot. he acknowledges the ddos attack against 4chan (likely from anontalk) but claims the ddos attack from 4chan that caused att to block the site was caused by an error on 4chan's part. here is the administrators info from http://status.4chan.org/ :

For the past three weeks, 4chan has been under a constant DDoS attack. 
We were able to filter this specific type of attack in a fashion that 
was more or less transparent to the end user. Unfortunately, as an unintended 
consequence of the method used, some Internet users received errant traffic 
from one of our network switches. A handful happened to be AT&T customers.

the npr episode was a casual interview with someone who was barely knowledgeable on the subject matter, and quoting internet rumors.Some thing (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've heard different versions of what happened from different news sources. The thing Fox News reported is important for neutrality so it's not all anti-AT&T who may not have been so much at fault. It's like, hey what if it wasn't AT&T's fault but really Anontalk.com DDoSing, then then some technical stuff happened related to spoofed IPs and zombie computers and so AT&T wasn't really so anti-4chan? The NPR source, which was listed in google news, is basically to backup AT&T and show that there was a history between 4chan and Anontalk.com since the rest of the sources about it are non-news. For instance, we can't use anontalk.com being blocked in a bunch of the spamblacklists on mediawiki/wikipedia sites a source, we gotta use news sources. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

is it not enough to simply quote the 4chan status cite? this has nothing to do with Fox. this article has already quoted moot's administration site but has excluded the portion about the site error. i'm going to remove the claims of "spoofing".Some thing (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally think quoting what moot said helps the article. Some others might be opposed to moot's blog as a source, though. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A site's owner is considered a reliable source for his site's doings, blog or not. I was actually thinking about adding the quote myself. --King ♣ Talk 15:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pedobear, CP, etc

Discussion collapsed, continued below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
i removed the mention of chris pooles initials being the same as for child pornography. the mention of "pedobear" is unsourced. since CP is illegal, any mention of it being tolerated at 4chan is potentially libelous for whoever maintains it. I am utterly new to this article, and to 4chan, but i thought i should mention this. unless someone can provide references to this material in the start of the article, it should probably be removed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Mentioning CP is not illegal. Jolly Ω Janner 01:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC) yes, and my language was perhaps somewhat overly dramatic. i dont think the article is truly libelous, but i do apologize for coming on strong like that. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC) PS I have added an explanation about the Pedobear meme to the article backed up be reliable sources in the form of literature. Jolly Ω Janner 01:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC) The definition for Pedobear in that text is cited from Wikipedia. Pacific Coast Highway {spring • ahead} 03:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Mercurywoodrose, you know that moot's alleged real name "Christopher Poole" is a fake name right, with references to 4chan memes CP (child porn) and Pool's closed (Habbo Hotel pranks), right? That was the point of my edit you reverted. And it can't be libel since it's obviously not the guy's real name and he chose it as an in-joke related to those things. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. However, WP:NOR - which also prevents you from cross-referencing the "obscure joke" quote with your knowlege of memes as WP:SYNTH. --King ♣ Talk 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC) If only I worked at Fox News, I could make Wikipedia more accurate place. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Most conservative reliable sources wouldn't touch Pedobear. It's just too controversial. Jolly Ω Janner 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC) They could do a whole scare tactics twist. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I had read that, and then forgotten it. My point is quite simple: i think we need to keep this article clean of inferences that 4chan in any way promotes or tolerates the distribution or positive discussion of child porn, unless there are sourced references to any of this kind of discussion. that could include links to 4chan itself. to me, that just keeps the article more NPOV. i know that an anonymous site like this, with lots of injokes and sarcasm, is gonna go all over the place, and that doesnt mean that anyone is an "advocate" of cp. but a newcomer to the article and subject should be able to walk away with a sense of the rampant silliness or juvenile behavior (not that i am above such silliness myself), and not be drawn into thinking that its a dark site, unless (and i havent really looked into it) there are reliable third party sources which say 4chan is problematic. it requires lots of distance from subject. but im not trying to force anything here, im just curious about what other people think of this perhaps overly critical observation. thanks by the way for letting me join in. in an article like this, consensus is probably extremely important. it seems like my small deletion, though, may be ok. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC) It is an absolute VIOLATION of NPOV to sanitize an article of elements of a subject you (or society) finds distasteful. Wikipedia is not censored. That extends to more than just profanity. The 'rampant silliness' you're talking about is only reached once a user gets past the quickly-closed CP threads and the blatant racism- but this doesn't mean they can't be in the article. If you read an article about a city, and that article omitted crime statistics to avoid giving readers the 'wrong idea', how would you feel about that after you got mugged? --King ♣ Talk 12:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I am not violating NPOV by asking whether an unsourced line in the article is potentially an insinuation that the purported creator of 4chan has initials which are the same as those for child porn at the site, therefore may in some way support that content. I have removed warnings on WP about "adult content" in external links. if any third party source has written about this topic, i thoroughly welcome any additions. if "objectionable" threads tend to get closed quickly, and that can be documented, thats great, lets put it in.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC) As I said below, the article feels biased against 4chan and /b/ in that it makes out "child pornography" to be a prominent feature on /b/. It is not, and if you were asked to provide actual hard statistics on the ratio of "CP to everything else", you couldn't do it. So, I ask, what are these lines about "CP" truly based on? Does it deserve to be mentioned? Absolutely, we know it happens on very rare occasions, but that doesn't deserve an essay on the subject. It's easy to compare this to the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident... in which the majority of his article TWO YEARS after the fact was about that single incident... not about his years on Seifeld or doing stand-up. It's shameful to come across such a violation of NPOV. There's a fine line to be drawn on the subject. We need to agree on a line or two to briefly mention the existence of child pornography on /b/, and leave it at that. Also, avoid using such terms as "pedobear is the most popular meme", such things cannot be proven and are ridiculous. Gpia7r (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "Child pornography is referred to as CP on 4chan. " Do we really need a fact tag when it is just the first two letters of the (for lack of a better phrase) phrase? Seems to be getting overly ironic, all things considered. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC) It shouldn't have an inline citation, because it should be mentioned later on in the article along with an inline citation there. But does it even need to be mentioned? CP is just an acronym for child porn. It's used outside of 4chan. Jolly Ω Janner 01:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC) **is this a good thing to have in the first paragraph?** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.149.227 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC) As "cp" is a term used outside of 4chan, it does not need to be in the top of this article as though a spotlight is shining on it. I would love to see the statistics of "CP Threads vs Every Other Thread", and see how significant it really is. It's hard to cite something that doesn't exist, and is merely based on hearsay and in-passing... Yes, we know the occasional child pornography exists on 4chan in rare occasions... but if asked to prove it, could anyone? I'm not denying it's there, but the article makes it sound like it's a prominent part of /b/ Gpia7r (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC) here is a link to an article about 4chan-run Google bombings. I'd note at least in the article that 'CP' is taken with a silly tone, a kind of "everyone wants it, no one can post it" vibe, leading to threads like "POST CP" - followed by people posting pictures of Captain Picard, or Cargo Pants, things with the initials CP. I haven't found a source for that yet. --King ♣ Talk 16:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC) The acronym CP is not notable to 4chan. It's used across much of the Internet. Whether or not child pornography is notable to 4chan is another matter. Jolly Ω Janner 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Child pornography often appears on 4chan and so does Pedobear. (Pedobear is now being sold on T-shirts thoughout the Internet) 4chan officially has a policy against child pornography, but any long-time 4chan user can tell you there are times when the 'mods are sleeping,' to use a 4chan phrase. In CP threads, people boast of being 'in b4 404,' meaning they downloaded the pictures before the thread was deleted. In any case, child pornography threads are rife and can stay up for much more than a moment. I'm not trying to slander 4chan, but it frustrates me that no news account of 4chan has mentioned Pedobear. It's ubiquitous. It's one of 4chan's unofficial emblems. It's unsettling. Penneth (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC) As we said above, it's unlikely reliable sources would want to write about a pedophilic bear. Jolly Ω Janner 21:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Right, I just get the feeling that this 4chan phenomena is being whitewashed. 4chan is extremely popular worldwide, but no one wants to touch the fact that it basically is mainstreaming internet pedophilia. Can you imagine seeing a dad out with his kids wearing a Pedobear t-shirt? (http://www.pedobearstore.com/) You probably will one of these days. Penneth (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "It's unsettling"? I could make a picture of a dog and call it "rapedog", but it means nothing. If you have a personal vendetta against 4chan, so be it. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't let it influence your perception of fact. 4chan is NOT "mainstreaming internet pedophilia", that's an absurd statement. A true, filthy pedophile will go to much worse places to do his or her deed. 4chan isn't considered a "go to" place to find such images. Why not mention 7chan, then? Apparently that's known to be hardly moderated at all, and a "breeding ground for CP"... why? Because 4chan is more popular. "Mainstreaming internet pedophilia" is far from truth. Gpia7r (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC) You're missing the point. Pedobear is a symbol of pedophilia on 4chan. It is posted with actual child porn. I have already stated that I have no vendetta against 4chan. I'm just sayin', there's far more to it than lolcats and rickrolling. It's bursting with hard-core gore, pornography, some of it kiddie, and much else that is sordid. Also, I googled pedobear t-shirts and got 25,800 results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.42.38 (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC) I just googled my own made-up word, Rapedog, and got 34,600. Google is not a meter of how popular something is. "Pedobear" is posted in more non-CP threads than CP. Pedobear is a joke, it is a humorous "idea", and is not necessarily DIRECTLY associated with the posting of CP. The joke is the mere aspect of CP, and the humor around it (captain picard, colored pencils, etc)... and oftentimes when it is posted, it doesn't live long enough to be seen by most people. Sure, there are occasions when it does... but most people joke about it, rather than participate. Oftentimes it's a single person in a single thread posting his shameful "cp folder" while others comment wildly about it. So... "It is posted with actual child porn" - False. It is posted often in other threads, like the wallpaper/general thread, simply as a symbol or a humorous variation of the bear. If one person wants to run and capitalize on the internet joke because there's a following of 4chan users (Not following of pedophiles, don't mistake that), then more power to them. Currently we "sort of" still live in a capitalist society, so there's nothing wrong with that. Less than 10% of people would probably even know what it meant Gpia7r (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Any rapedog t-shirts out there? You're wrong. The pedobear cartoon is often posted alongside child pornography. Just to repeat that: you're wrong and the pedobear cartoon is often posted alongside child pornography. We definitely do live in a capitalist society. It is in the process of commodifying children for sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.42.106 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Please cite your claims, show sources, etc. If you can somehow prove from a "random" message board that "pedobear" is posted more often in the unbelievably rare "cp" threads than it is elsewhere, I will gladly bow out of this debate. Gpia7r (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) I see Pedobear multiple times every single time I'm on /b/...I rarely see CP. rzrscm (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I apologize for the delayed reply. Your argument has shifted. Before you said that Pedobear is purely an ironic, jocular symbol. Now you're admitting that it is posted in CP threads, but that the number of times it is used jokingly far outweighs the number of times it accompanies kiddie porn. For my part, I have never claimed that Pedobear is posted the majority of time in kiddie porn threads. I've simply said that it is often posted in such threads. I believe I have won this debate because you have come around to admitting my central claim: that Pedobear is indeed posted in CP threads on 4chan. P.S. As soon as you have discovered an algorithm that can track the thousands of threads on 4chan and the quantity and nature of pedobear postings, I don't believe your above request for proof is feasible. Penneth (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC) P.P.S. This debate about Pedobear doesn't even touch on the fact that 4chan is extremely racist, that it is a place for posting random people's phone numbers so that they can be harassed, etc. Penneth (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I'm stating that your remarks that Pedobear = CP are completely baseless and without merit. There are hundreds of other very commonly posted "memes" on /b/, and I'm sure a number of them have found their way into a rare CP thread. Should every one of them be mentioned as well? Certainly, under your logic, they should. There is no sense in calling attention to a single "meme" simply because of it's name. You should also mention the "Success kid" and "Chris Hansen" meme, as well, since they both have a link to child pornography. Why not "Socially awkward penguin" and various "Pokedads"? I've seen some of those with CP humor in them. Why not "Boxxy", "Courage Wolf", etc? I could go on and on. If you want to mention Pedobear and make the false comment that it is "(one of) the most popular meme(s)", you damn well better come up with some reliable and solid sources, of which you've failed to do. You'd be better off making a blog and spreading your propaganda there. CP exists. Pedobear exists. Neither exist because of the other. Which came first, do you know? Pedobear could have been created as a concept, an idea... but you keep striving to make this non-existant solid link between the two. Re: Racism - What does that have to do with this topic? Are you reaching for more ammo to try and back up your arguement? Strawman does NOT work here. /b/ is /b/, it's not your job to police the internet and what happens on it. Ever read the intro to it? The part where only an idiot would take anything posted there as fact? Gpia7r (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2009 I have never said that Pedobear = CP! I've said that it's posted in CP threads. Amazingly, you have admitted this and you're still arguing. Yes, there are hundreds of memes, but pedobear was invented on 4chan (and it is being widely merchandised); every attempt I've made to mention it on Wikipedia has been censored. A few other memes might find there way into CP threads (a guy drooling, a cat saying, 'This is relevant to my interests', screams of MOAR and WINCEST, a picture of Chris Hansen from 'To Catch a Predator'). Pedobear is the most germane to those threads. I made the point about racism, and the posting of random phone numbers, to underline the fact that /b/ is not a tame corner of the internet, a breeding ground for lolcats. It's a hard-core place, and the Wikipedia article doesn't reflect that. You have already admitted that pedobear is posted in CP threads, so I don't know what we're discussing. Funnily enough, just for stating the facts about Pedobear and providing a citation, I have been threatened with a ban by someone named the King. It is not my job to police the Internet, but neither is it your job to police Wikipedia. For now, I will not repost any mention of Pedobear in the article, for it would be futile, but I would like it to be noted by Wikipedia users that I have been censored. P.S. Pedobear.org si ranked 227,972 by Alexa on the web. It is linked to by www.boyloverlinks.net. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pedobear.org Penneth (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC) (UTC) It is not exclusively associated with CP threads, and there's the problem with your statement. You continue to try and pass off falsehoods as facts. "Pedobear is one of the most common" - This is untrue and cannot be verified. Wikipedia needs FACT and SOURCES to state such bold claims. "Pedobear is the most germane to those threads" - Again, just because you're saying it, does not make it true. This is your opinion, and it cannot be cited as fact. I agree with you that /b/ isn't a shining example of the greatest product of the Internet. If the article doesn't have a piece of "hard-core" feel to it, you aren't obligated to seek out random bits of information that aren't true. Pedobear is posted in CP threads less than it's posted in any other thread, that's the point. "Not my job to police Wikipedia"? - Sure it is, when people go posting non-facts, that's called vandilism, and I take pride in reverting it. I don't get paid for that job, but I'd like for people to not be misinformed. Yep, your non-facts sure are being censored, as they should be. Gpia7r (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Comment about Pedobear being a reference/joke toward CP in the /b/ section of the article (rather than the top of the page). Gpia7r (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC) You would like proof that Pedobear is a popular meme. Here you go. Out of hundreds of millions of websites on the Internet, pedobear.org is ranked 227,972 by Alexa. It's linked to by boyloverlinks.net. (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pedobear.org) Keep in mind that pedobear was invented on 4chan. You have conceded that it's posted in 4chan's CP threads. So what are we debating? And where is the 'joke' when a drooling or panting pedobear is posted in a thread with actual child pornography? Thank you for admitting that pedobear is occasionally posted in such CP threads. Thanks also for admitting that I'm being censored. You have still not shown where I was misinformed or false, but you have happily and brashly demonstrated that you are a censor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penneth (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. You said: "Pedobear is posted in CP threads less than it's posted in any other thread, that's the point." Do YOU have proof for this?Penneth (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Of course it's popular, I never said it wasn't. There are lots of popular memes on 4chan. I would venture to guess that some are posted far more than Pedobear. And just as a meme about a cartoon dog would be linked to by a dog-lover website, Pedobear probably attracts some less-than-reputable fans. MOST of the time that it is posted, it is not in a "CP" thread, or causing 4chan to (in your words) "basically mainstream internet pedophilia." And your statement that "It is posted with actual child porn" is said so solidly, without following it up with "... but also mostly in non-CP threads." Your bias is painstakingly apparent here. Then, your comment: "...it frustrates me that no news account of 4chan has mentioned Pedobear. It's ubiquitous. It's one of 4chan's unofficial emblems."... is also patently false! You're claiming it has reached such a popularity that it is an "unofficial emblem" of a random message board is silly! I'll play your game: Pedobear - 723k results on Google. Boxxy - 1.6 million. Courage Dog - 1.1 million. Any "results" you provide are flawed, as much as mine will be using your methods. Why would the news report on something they can't prove? Damn, got me there, they do it every day... you're right, we need a Dateline hour-long special about the evils of 4chan and the rampant unmoderated CP that exists there. "people boast of being 'in b4 404,' meaning they downloaded the pictures before the thread was deleted" - FALSE. You're jumping to so many conclusions. "in b4 404" is a remark that you VIEWED a thread before it was moderated, and has absolutely ZERO connection to SAVING anything. And no, I have no solid proof, it's impossible to prove. More of a common sense thing that any visitor of 4chan would come up with. How about you go to /b/ for a week and report EVERY SINGLE posting of Pedobear, as well as what type of thread it was in. Your comments also lead me to believe you've never even visitted 4chan. "drooling or panting"? Do you even know what Pedobear is based off of? It's real, and of course, it's Japanese. I don't have the info on me, and I'm not going to take a chance on 4chan while I'm at work, but it's not something a user just drew up one day. It has a backstory, and if one person threw out the name "pedobear"... it stuck and became a meme, much like the millions of other memes out there. Gpia7r (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC) So you admit you have no proof that Pedobear is used more in non-CP threads than in CP threads. We're supposed to trust the "common sense thing" of a 4chan user. For the record, I've visited 4chan many times, notwithstanding your belief that I haven't. A drooling pedobear? Here's one: http://assets.knowyourmeme.com/system/profile/icon/582/big/pedobear_drool.jpg Panting? http://www.pedobearplush.com/ As proof of pedobear's popularity, I gave you a site ranking for pedobear.org -- a very high ranking. I said Pedobear is an unofficial emblem because it appears in one of 4chan's official banner ads. If I was mistaken about the meaning of in b4 404, I apologize. The fact remains that people on 4chan boast of getting to the CP before it's deleted. To reiterate, you've conceded pedobear is posted with actual child pornography on 4chan. Is that worth noting on Wikipedia? Finally, I think it's fair to say 4chan is helping mainstream internet pedophilia when pedobear is printed on t-shirts at a factory and apparently sold to interested boy lovers.Penneth (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC) My only proof is seeing it. Seeing where it is and where it isn't. Seeing it is the only proof anyone has, and if you truly think I'm wrong, then please help me out. Rather than rehash what I say (three times now) and consider the arguement over, please prove what I say is wrong? Pedobear is posted more often in non-CP threads than in CP threads - I am willing to stand by that as a fact, but I cannot provide proof because it's impossible to do in writing, and a "random" board is impossible to cite. Again, show me where I'm wrong. Also, congrats for showng 2 out of 2 billion renditions of a single image. I could photoshop a picture of a US Senator having relations with a dog... but how much weight would that carry? As much as one person's rendition of a single image, as you so kindly linked to. Site rankings are meaningless, and I responded with two examples of where they don't apply, so yes, I did respond. Again, it appears on a banner - Along with tons of other memes. Are you seeing my point yet? You are shining this light on a single meme without considering the millions of other ones. I didn't "concede" anything. It's posted with CP just like a picture of a dog, a horse, or a picture of you may be posted with CP. It's irrelevant! Captain Picard is probably posted with it, too! You treat it like it is exclusive to CP, and it is NOT. Concluding that Pedobear is one of the most popular memes on a random message board will require verifiability by providing reliable sources, of which will be immediately disputed (as I have done) that the notability is worthy of being posted. Even mentioning it in passing as I suggested earlier would be silly as this is not a repository for every meme in existence, no matter how many t-shirts are made. Gpia7r (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC) You asked me to show you where you've been wrong. Let me. A few posts ago you quoted me about pedobear and said this: "'It is posted with actual child porn' - False. It is posted often in other threads, like the wallpaper/general thread, simply as a symbol or a humorous variation of the bear." You said I was false to implicate the pedobear in child pornography threads. Subsequently you have admitted that pedobear appears in child pornography threads. You've also said that I've never visited 4chan. That's false. I was on there yesterday, and I have been on many times. You questioned whether there was a drooling or panting pedobear. I furnished you with examples of both. You said, "site ranking are meaningless." So why is it that Alexa site rankings are cited in magazine articles about 4chan? This debate is over because you have already conceded my central point. Pedobear is posted in child pornography threads. Though you denied it at first, you and I now agree on this point.Penneth (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC) You can twist my words all you want to fit your point, but you're still wrong. I said it appears in CP threads just like any other meme or image. It appears, just as Boxxy appears, just as Courage Dog appears. It's not necessarily linked to CP threads, but it appears in them just like any other image. Your image examples were just the worst examples you could think of to fit your "negative image of pedobear" arguement. Most images are of Pedobear "running" in a certain direction. What you provide doesn't matter, because like I said, there are thousands of versions of any picture you can bring up. Like I said before, I can modify a picture to look like whatever I want, but it holds no weight to the arguement, because they are just at the whim of a single person's creativity. I conceded nothing, because the fact that pedobear appears in CP threads means nothing because there's no proof or citation or source saying that it is exclusive to CP threads. Gpia7r (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Twist your words? I quoted you verbatim! The appearance of a pedophilic bear in pedophilic image threads is noteworthy. I did not modify any picture. Pedobear is commonly found on 4chan drooling. It doesn't have to be exclusive to CP threads to be noteworthy. I am finished with you.74.233.42.18 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC) You're still failing to address what I'm saying. You cannot cite or prove the notability of a single meme, and claim it has a significant meaning. There are far more controversial memes that exist, but you fail to acknowledge their existence, because all you wish to focus on is this single one. Pedobear is an image, and is used in ways far beyond "CP threads", and you fail to see that. A "know your meme" website as a citation does not carry notability or reason, and will likely be removed. The intentions of putting it in the article, too, carry little to no notability, and absolutely no verifiability. You wish to spread false information, so be it, but you know the rules of Wikipedia. Your internet "White Knight" attitude of "I'm finished with you" says a lot about your character and your unwillingness to address the facts and see the other side. Gpia7r (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Debate aside, I would like to introduce a sentence in the introductory paragraph that reads: "Pedobear is a popular meme on 4chan. A cartoon pedophile bear, its origin and meaning are controversial, but it is sometimes posted in child pornography threads on /b/."Penneth (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC) This is still inaccurate as you choose to only focus on the negative portions of it. Again, bring up every single controversial "meme" if you plan to add that line. Gpia7r (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Let me know what other controversial memes there are, and I will. 74.233.42.18 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC) This argument is a waste of time. We can't add anything like what is being discussed until it is sourced. Shii (tock) 04:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I posted this source originally; it was deleted. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pedobear74.233.42.18 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Ah yes, that peer-reviewed academic source, "knowyourmeme.com". Shii (tock) 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) As has been said before, there are no mainstream sources on Pedobear because nobody is brave enough to mention it. I will keep searching. THIS IS YOUR OPINION! Your comments are dripping with a conflict of interest! There are no mainstream sources because IT CAN'T BE SOURCED. Again, just because you WANT something to be true, doesn't mean that it is! Gpia7r (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Remeber to keep a cool head when discussing a topic. --Scythre (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Posted on 4chan right now... Here's the time-stamp for the Original Post: "Anonymous 08/11/09(Tue)12:48:00 No.152123744 /b/ give me a reason why your the sickest people in internet." Here are links to some of the images in the thread. None are illicit, however the first two are pornographic Japanese comics, one involving an insect. (Open at your own risk.) The rest are permutations of Pedobear. http://img34.imageshack.us/i/1250009511677.jpg/ , http://img13.imageshack.us/i/1250011304497.jpg/ , http://img212.imageshack.us/i/1250010649916.jpg/ , http://img190.imageshack.us/i/1250010803451.png/ 74.233.42.18 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Unverifiable, unsourcable, irrelivent. Did I ask you if there are bad pictures on /b/? Did I ask if /b/ was the "sickest place on the internet"? You're trying to use images posted by 'anonymous and random people' as a justification? There's no way to prove that you aren't the one posting those images. Plausible deniability, and your personal conflict of interest has an effect on everything you say. Gpia7r (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC) There is no way I could've posted all of those pictures because 4chan has flood control. Moderators, please note that this individual has already suspected me of never having been to 4chan. Now this individual is alleging that I am on 4chan posting dozens of pictures of Pedobear, pornography and gore simply to fabricate a case. I'm getting tired of these accusations, let alone of responding to them.68.153.199.181 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Here is the direct link: http://img.4chan.org/b/res/152123744.html74.233.42.18 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I will post screenshots later, since that link will expire eventually. For now, it's off to work.74.233.42.18 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC) WP:GSNR, WP:GYNOT, WP:GHITS, WP:OR, WP:POPULARITY, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:3PARTY, WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCES, and WP:REDFLAG are just a few precidents you need to consider (referring to some of your claims earlier, as well). Gpia7r (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I post the link to that 4chan thread only to demonstrate that there are many permutations of Pedobear on the /b/ boards, and further that pedobear is sometimes posted alongside hard-core pornography and hard-core gore. I could not locate any other recurring meme in that thread besides Pedobear and MOAR or MOARPLZ. I will post screenshots of the thread in question. But as of this writing the link is still active: it contains hard-core Japanese cartoon pornography involving insect impregnation, several pictures of real Japanese women with snakes going up their vaginas, several dead bodies and severed limbs, and at least 18 renditions of Pedobear.68.153.199.181 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) This is absolutely ridiculous. With no source, you don't have a leg to stand on. Pedobear isn't going into the article, and neither are Advice Dog, Happy Negro, or anything else you can name (that haven't been reported on), regardless of whatever notability YOU have ascribed to them. --King ÖÖmie III 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia article cites Gawker, so I'm sure there will be no problem citing Wonkette. http://wonkette.com/410089/pedobear-chases-obama-around-internet68.153.199.181 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Or here: http://wonkette.com/409990/dr-pedobear-will-see-you-now68.153.199.181 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC) These two sources should verify that Pedobear exists. Of course it exists. But there is no source of notability when compared to any other meme. Gpia7r (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC) The fact remains that this is a random and anonymous message/image board. There is no way to prove that you have not posted those images on your own, or people you know posting them on your behalf.Gpia7r (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 4chan has flood control and in any case I have not posted a single one of them. It is paranoid to suggest that I've rounded up my friends to post extremely violent and sexual images on that board so as to prove an esoteric point on a Wikipedia forum. Your arguments are becoming flimsier and flimsier.68.153.199.181 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Plausible deniability. It is unverifiable. Gpia7r (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC) It is deniability, but it isn't plausible. 4chan threads are not reliable, citable, or verifiable. Period. You know this. Gpia7r (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Yet earlier you suggested that I go on /b/ and count the number and nature of Pedobear postings. If you really want to make that your goal, be sure to collect statistics for every other popular meme, where they are, and how many more of them there are than Pedobear. Either way, 4chan is not a reliable source of statistics, as you cannot possibly see every thread created or every post made, or refer back to it, or prove it's verifiability, or prove it is not Original Research, or provide more sources to it's validity, or provide a reason that Pedobear is notable enough to deserve insertion to the article with the biased undertone of CP. Gpia7r (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC) So you say I should go on 4chan and collect statistic on every possible meme (which is impossible!). And then you say that statistics about 4chan are invalid anyway. Amazing! Semantics - See below on why you're out of line on this comment as well. Gpia7r (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I have already given two links from Wonkette citing Pedobear's existence (see above). Here is one more: http://www.inquisitr.com/30613/republicans-now-using-obama-pedobear-images/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.199.181 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC) You're grabbing at straws now. No one denied Pedobear's existence. Stay on topic. By your current logic, there needs to be inclusion of every other meme that exists and is proven to exist outside of 4chan. Gpia7r (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC) None of those sources actually mention 4chan. And I don't mean they don't mention it as Pedobear's birthplace. They don't mention it at all. --King ÖÖmie III 18:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Nobody on this board denies that Pedobear is a meme on 4chan. It is notable because it has appeared in a Pat Buchanan column with a picture of Obama.68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Because that link isn't biased at all. Again, one person's opinion. Journalists will reach for whatever they can to make a "story", and if I photoshop a picture of your president with Courage Dog, and it gets posted on the internet, that doesn't make it notable. Gpia7r (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC) It is notable because a former Republican presidential candidate and syndicated columnist, for no apparent reason, posted an image of Obama with pedobear in a column. This was mentioned in Wonkette, whose related blog, Gawker, is cited in this Wikipedia entry. Someone named King maintains that this is proof of nothing because the Wonkette links don't mention 4chan, but it is a common sense fact that 4chan is the main "romping ground" for the pedobear meme. In any case, since I'm a journalist myself, I will just have to write a national article on Pedobear's presence on 4chan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC) NPOV, Conflict of Interest, Original Research, and Self Referencing material. Gpia7r (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC) To be precise, here is what Gpia7r demanded on Aug. 10: "How about you go to /b/ for a week and report EVERY SINGLE posting of Pedobear, as well as what type of thread it was in." That is obviously impossible, unless you want to pay me to take off an entire week and spend 24 hours a day scrolling through 15 pages of constantly shifting threads. But I did find a thread with over 18 pedobear postings in it. And it was a pornography/gore thread. I was told by Gpia7r that this didn't count as evidence because I could've either posted the dozens of images in the thread myself (impossible; there is flood control), or otherwise recruited my friends to do so for me. This debate is like something out of Catch-22.68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Great job on the out-of-context quote again. You're good at that. That line was referring directly to your comment: "You said: "Pedobear is posted in CP threads less than it's posted in any other thread, that's the point." Do YOU have proof for this?-Penneth", NOT the side-fact that 4chan is not a verifiable source. I simply wanted you, personally, to go there and watch and see how wrong you are. So, when you're done bringing back your weeklong data, please prove that most Pedobear images were shown in CP threads. Sources, citations, verifiable information, etc. You can provide none of that. Gpia7r (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "I simply wanted you, personally, to go there and watch and see how wrong you are." I went there today and it took me a minute to find a thread larded with Pedobear memes, porn, and gore. So how exactly did I find out how wrong I am?68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Gpia7r's request was rhetorical, and pointed out the absurdity of trying to source this. You're confusing cause and effect- it's impossible to assert cause and notability for pedobear, because it HASN'T BEEN SOURCED. We're not stopping you from attempting to legitimately add Pedobear to this article. We're stopping you from adding it in spite of wikipedia policy and the inclusion guidelines. The real absurdity is in people demanding sources from 4chan, then ruling out 4chan as a source.68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Your statement that "nobody... denies that Pedobear is a meme on 4chan" is absurd. No reliable source is MAKING that assertion, thus, it doesn't belong on this page. You can't claim Common Sense because YOU know something. You can't just add <ref>"Trust me"</ref> Wow, I'm accused of taking quotes out of context, and then with a clever ellipsis you take my quote out of context. The original quote read: "Nobody ON THIS BOARD denies that Pedobear is a meme on 4chan." There's nothing absurd about that statement. It is true.68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Careful before you spout nonsense. I certainly hope you aren't claiming I said that. Gpia7r (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Since the above quote was not signed as per the rules, and since it contains numerous caps locked sentences, which is your specialty, I did assume it was you. But I apologize if it wasn't.68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC) SineBot is getting tired of you, as well. Here's the truth: Pedobear is a meme, one of thousands. It's mere existence does not prove to be notable enough for inclusion, nor is it "mainstreaming internet pedophelia". Pedobear is posted in all types of 4chan threads, whether they be on /b/, /wg/, /k/, /a/, you name it. Unfortunately, 4chan is not a verifiable or reliable source to assertain any solid information on the cause, existence, or result of the Pedobear cartoon. The inclusion to the article is difficult because, while it's notability is suspect, doing so would set a precidence for including other memes that may carry even stronger "controversy". Can we at least agree on this? Gpia7r (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC) So Sinebot is "getting tired" or me. Is this the prelude to a ban? I will not agree with you about "precidence" [sic]. And the "mainstreaming Internet pedophilia" comment is moot because I never said such a thing in the Wikipedia article, where I merely stated that Pedobear is a popular meme on 4chan (true: it's in the official banner ads, unlike any other meme) and that it is posted in CP threads (true: you yourself agree). Also, I will reiterate my question to you, starting with a quote from you. "I simply wanted you, personally, to go there and watch and see how wrong you are." I went to 4chan today and it took me a minute to find a thread larded with Pedobear memes, porn, and gore. So how exactly did I find out how wrong I am?68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I've had to re-submit comments because of all of the times you didn't sign yours, and SineBot beat me. Stating that you mentioning the rule of signing comments is hypocritical. You said it in your comments above, and it is false. You tried to reinforce your claim about Pedobear with "4chan is extremely popular worldwide, but no one wants to touch the fact that it basically is mainstreaming internet pedophilia." These are your words, and that is what I'm referring to. I said it's posted in CP threads, but you're again omitting the fact that I also said ANYTHING is posted in CP threads. I said numerous times that it is not exclusive to CP threads, nor is it the only thing posted. Pedobear does not equal CP thread, and CP thread does not equal Pedobear. There may have been CP threads that didn't have a single Pedobear image! You don't know this, I don't know this, it's absolutely unverifiable. Courage dog is posted in CP threads, we need to include an article about that, too. Oh, and every single other image ever that has been in a CP thread. Pedobear is a meme, meme's are in 4chan (and numerous other raunchy websites), so of course you're going to see them on 4chan. Want a medal or cookie or some sort of pat on the back? How does that make it worth including? Again, I ask, does that mean every other meme I see on 4chan should be included? Gpia7r (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Both of you, stop this nonsense. Pedobear's connection to 4chan isn't sourced, and also isn't common sense, so it's not going to be included. Done and done. The edit window is actually LAGGING this section is so long, and all for an argument that was over before it started. --King ÖÖmie III 19:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Pedobear's connection to 4chan is certainly common sense: http://img.4chan.org/b/res/152147823.html. It's all over that thread. The connection is elucidated on this website: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pedobear. Though you can dispute the credibility of the "Know Your Meme" itself, the information contained there is accurate. Pedobear is based on a Japanese bear called Kuma, a picture of which is available at the Know Your Meme link. (Kuma is also listed on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuma) Kuma began on the Japanese board 2chan. 4chan turned it into Pedobear.68.153.199.181 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "4chan turned it into Pedobear" - Cite, source, verify. No way to prove that at all. Could have been created at 2chan, ebaums, or some random guy in their basement. Gpia7r (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Do I need to prove that it originated on 4chan? Isn't it enough to show that it is a widely disseminated meme on 4chan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.199.181 (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Pedobear is by far one of the most popular 4chan memes. Anyone who don't see this is blind. Also, it should be mentioned the vast amount of CP that is posted at midnight on B. --201.254.248.187 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Pedobear Continued To alleviate the stress on loading the behemoth above. Continue here, please. --King ÖÖmie III 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "Though you can dispute the credibility of the "Know Your Meme" itself, the information contained there is accurate." This has no bearing here. Know Your Meme isn't a reliable source, as the content is user-created, and it falls under the category of "wiki". Correct or not, it can't be sourced here, and thus, the subject it pertains to REMAINS UNSOURCED. --King ÖÖmie III 20:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC) So Know Your Meme isn't a viable source because it's user-generated, even though the information is accurate. And 4chan isn't legit either because... well, no one has explained that. But the continual and frequent posting of pedobear on 4chan, including in threads that I have documented, is not a common sense connection between 4chan and Pedobear. Makes sense, thanks.68.153.199.181 (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "Do I need to prove that it originated on 4chan? Isn't it enough to show that it is a widely disseminated meme on 4chan? "-Unsigned comment by Penneth Nope, and no one is arguing that either! The fact that it's a meme is irrelevent, because it's only one meme out of thousands. As King says, your only go-to source isn't a valid source. Your intent to add this to the article is very strong - What's the reason? What are you trying to prove? If there was some actual informative and notable point to saying that Pedobear is a meme on 4chan (and other websites), without mentioning the hundreds and thousands of other memes... all of which can rear their ugly heads in some less than wonderous threads (CP, gore, porn, etc)... where's the notability there? Gpia7r (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Pedobear is notable because it is a symbol of pedophilia and it is used in criminal child pornography threads on 4chan. No, the posting of Pedobear in such threads is not random, as I have demonstrated in the previously linked-to thread, where there were at least 18 pedobears mixed up with dismembered limbs, insect impregnation pornography, and cartoon child pornography. There were no other memes posted in that thread. After challenging me to go to 4chan in search of examples of pedobear's use, you dismissed this example and all but accused me of fabricating evidence (after having accused me of never visiting 4chan, a claim you never retracted or apologized for). In other words, you wanted evidence from 4chan; I gave it to you; you dismissed 4chan as a source of evidence. Your reasoning is twisted, your argumentation circular. (Pedobear is also notable because it has been reported on in Wonkette and other news blogs after an image of Pedobear inexplicably appeared next to Obama in a column by a former Republican presidential candidate and intellectual leader of the conservatives.) Why are the other memes, like lolcats, mentioned if they are but one of thousands? I would like an explanation on that score. 68.153.199.181 (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "it is a symbol of pedophilia and it is used in criminal child pornography threads" Cite this from a verifiable source. "as I have demonstrated in the aforementioned linked-to thread" 4chan is not a reliable source. A single thread does not represent the past however many years of 4chan. "accused me of fabricating evidence (after having accused me of never visiting 4chan, a claim you never retracted or apologized for)." Never accused. I said there's no evidence to state that you couldn't have done that. That is one of the million reasons 4chan is not a reliable source. It's anonymous and random. "In other words, you wanted evidence from 4chan; I gave it to you" Also, stated earlier as impossible rhetoric, to enforce how 4chan is not a reliable source. Gpia7r (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "Why are the other memes, like lolcats, mentioned if they are but one of thousands? I would like an explanation on that score." lolcats aren't exclusive to 4chan either, but there are onrunning websites like icanhazcheezburger that constantly post lolcats in a non 4chan light.Gpia7r (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Here's yet another 4chan pedobear thread. http://img.4chan.org/b/res/152168652.html I've visited 4chan three times today; found a pedobear thread each time.68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC) And until you find a reliable source to cite, on 4chan it will stay. You going out to 4chan and finding something, then reporting it here without a real source, is the DEFINITION of Original Research. Once again, over before it started. --King ÖÖmie III 21:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I think it's funny when people from 4chan, mostly /b/ users I'm sure come to wikipedia and want to add a bunch of stupid stuff only to be shut down. Go back to ED. Leviathanlover (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Nobody disputes that Pedobear is a meme on 4chan. It's common sense and common knowledge.74.233.42.18 (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC) You really have no idea how Wikipedia works. Shii (tock) 01:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC) One more time, you can't claim 'common knowledge' for knowledge that MOST PEOPLE do not have. Unless you want to make the case that the majority of people on this planet frequent 4chan. We're not writing this article for us. --King ÖÖmie III 12:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Well what do you think of the below source connecting 4chan to pedobear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.199.181 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC) A short description of a stuffed animal, showing no sources or citations to even THEIR claims. Yep, sounds reliable and iron-clad. The misspellings in the article make it even more reliable. Gpia7r (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC) You can characterize it however you like, but in that link Pedobear is called a 4chan meme. There are no misspellings to my eye. Or are you objecting to the two Ls in Lolli and the use of an ellipsis and an "er"? None are incorrect, by the way. For the sake of other users, I will repost the entire text here. Gpia will helpfully point out the misspellings: "DO WANT! I can’t believe someone made a stuffed animal based on Pedobear, the lolli-loving 4chan meme, but they did and it’s the greatest meme merchandise since the 3 Wolf Moon shirt. Give this to a child you… er, on second thought, keep this far away from children. Far away! They are to Pedobear what Winnie the Pooh is to honey, and try not to read into that analogy too deeply. For more Pedobear, check out this recent CollegeHumor video starring the lovable, creepy ol’ bear in an Academy Award nominated movie. Pedobear earns our 'seal of approval,' as long as he stays away from playgrounds and middle school science fairs." I have discussed this issue long and hard with the pedants here. I'm going to craft a few sentences, though nothing substantive (yet), about Pedobear and insert them into the article. I will lay out the sentences in here first, and post them tomorrow. Since this article includes citations of such notable scientific journals as "Gawker," I do believe this link is up to snuff as well.68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC) They can call it a 4chan meme all they want, but what about that advertisement makes it true? It holds just as much weight as your claims, which have all been baseless and without a solid, verifiable, or reliable source. Keep digging. Gpia7r (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Dream on. This is going up. Sincerely yours, 68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) You seem to be not considering what I said. That advertisement is not a reliable or verifiable source. Please address this without rehashing what you've said 11 times now about how you personally feel and believe it is. You need a solid source, you've yet to provide one. Gpia7r (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC) It's not an advertisement.68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. It's rich of you to call my claims baseless when you don't actually disagree with any of them (ie, pedobear is a 4chan meme). -Penneth Also note that it is currently your single opinion vs the opinion of a number of editors here. You have failed to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia in your claims, and you still insist on posting information that is not verifiable or reliable. Take caution in what you are doing, for it WILL be reverted, and you will likely throw a fit and bring up the 3RR again. It is a description of a stuffed animal, and the author is making baseless claims just as you are. Pedobear is an Internet Meme. Gpia7r (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC) So, as you have admitted, is every meme cited in the article. They're all "Internet Memes" that are found circulating on numberless boards. You can keep calling the information unverifiable or unreliable, but that doesn't negate the source. That source you have mischaracterized as an advertisement (it is NOT an advertisement); incidentally, you have YET to ennumerate the alleged misspellings in it, which makes me laugh coldly. As for the opinions of editors - first, facts are not determined by majority rule, and second, you are the only one (are you an editor?) who has ruled out this source. Others may follow, but this is how it stands now. I reiterate: a reference to Pedobear will be posted in here, then posted in the article tomorrow. You know what you can do with your exhortation to "take caution." (You would make a fabulous operative in a police state.)68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Try an undent. Please enlighten me as to how you intend to twist that light-hearted ad for a stuffed animal into pedobear's 'inherent notability' for being a demonic symbol of our society's sexualization of children. --King ÖÖmie III 19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC) DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT IT'S AN ADVERTISEMENT? No. It's a blog entry associated with comedy.com and it makes mention, not only of the stuffed animal, but also of a video about Pedobear. The video is actually the showcase of the blog entry. Your snivelling about the sexualitzation of children is pure strawman. My intention is simply to state that Pedobear is a 4chan meme (with source), and that it was recently strangely glued to an image of Obama and put in a column by former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. I'm going to figure out how to take this debate further up the Wikipedia chain. I'm tired of dealing with czars who like to rule imperiously over little boards. I'm a journalist who deals with editors on a weekly basis, and this is atrocious. Sincerely yours, 68.153.199.181 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I certainly hope that, as a "journalist" , you don't send out your articles without spellchecking and grammar checking. I find it hard to believe, simply from what you've written so far. I think you're trying to add weight to a high-school journalism class to help you with your argument. Gpia7r (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Where are the misspellings in the source? That's all I want to know. (Psst, spellchecking? That's two words, my friend.)68.153.199.181 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC) "sexualitzation", "Buchanana", etc etc. I've never seen so many post-comment changes made. So, I'm commenting on your personal "journalism" skills, and your obvious lack of review before submitting. Back on topic - What makes that article's claim that it is a 4chan meme a verifiable piece of information? Do you know the person that posted that blog entry, and if they somehow were involved in the upbringing of 4chan and over the "Meme Creation Department"? Gpia7r (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Your impugning of my journalism is extremely insignificant to me. On topic: I don't know the person who wrote that blog entry, and I'm almost certain they weren't involved in the creation of 4chan and its innumerable memes. All of this is highly irrelevant. As you acknowledged further up, I don't have to prove that pedobear originated on 4chan - only that it circulates as a meme on 4chan. So states the source - which I notice you're no longer calling an advertisement. Where are the misspellings in there, anyway? Do "spellcheck" it for me.68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Added a Third-Opinion request on the main page, which is sad because there have been far more than that against your claims... and apparently 6 opposing opinions aren't enough. Gpia7r (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC) It's STRAWMAN? Pedobear is notable because it is a symbol of pedophilia and it is used in criminal child pornography threads on 4chan. You've yet to provide a source making that assertion. And by the way, blogs are not reliable sources. --King ÖÖmie III 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC) The fact that Pedobear is a symbol, joking, ironic or whatever, of pedophilia is self-evident: pedobear is a pedophile. The fact that Pedobear is posted in child pornography threads has been affirmed by none other than my loudest opponent, Gpia. I am not here to prove that Pedobear is posted in CP threads, however, since you guys have already asserted that 4chan threads are invalid sources. (Let the record show that I have furnished this board with a link to a /b/ thread in which 18 pedobears were posted alonside cartoon child porn, insect impregnation porn, and hard-core gore. Screenshots can be provided.) So I am limiting myself to proving what is well-known anyway: that pedobear is a meme on 4chan. It is true that blog entries are often not considered reliable sources. But there is an exception for blogs if they are employers - in other words, if the writers for those blogs get paid, and if those writers are well-versed in their field. The blog entry I cited was published through comedy.com, which employs columnists and has an HQ in Los Angeles.68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC) This has all been said, and debunked. You can say "Pedobear is posted in CP threads" all you want, and absolutely disregard why that is irrelevent... but the fact still stands. It is an image, and thousands of images per day are posted in threads, be they CP or not. Stop forgetting about that. Gpia7r (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I said above in plain words, and I'll say again, that I am not seeking to prove Pedobear is posted in CP threads (though I am not wrong about that). What I'm trying to prove is that Pedobear is a meme on 4chan. I will report that in the article based on a reliable source. You say the source isn't reliable because it's a blog entry? The blog is an employer with a professional staff and therefore it meets Wikipedia's reliability requirements. End of story.68.153.199.181 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC) That is where your (Penneth's) argument started, and that is where it is finished. Be sure to read back up on the past 15 pages of this debate if you've forgotten why that is an invalid claim. Gpia7r (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Where are the misspellings in the source?68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Here's a source tying pedobear in with 4chan. http://geekpadshow.com/2009/07/16/pedobear-stuffed-animal-loves-kids-too-much/74.233.42.18 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC) wow, and to think this started with my little comment...I still dont think that we have got sourced information that can justify adding too much about the pedobear meme here, but i admit this video is a start. I dont think its enough yet, but if this video becomes a meme itself, say if its slashdotted, or if this conversation is slashdotted (slashdot beware of us, we may try to get slashdotted just to justify the inclusion of a single sentence in the article. oh no, im being sucked into a recursive vortex, pedobear save me...oh, i just realized, the entire universe is a system of recursivity with no original, verifiable source). perhaps we should all just take a page from Robert Anton Wilson, who didnt believe ANYTHING, and wanted to ban the word IS (which would pretty much make WP untenable). or maybe Kurt Gödel can help, but i doubt it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I thought you guys might like this. It's a little girl purportedly offering to take off her clothes for /b/. And the thread is full of Pedobear: http://img.4chan.org/b/res/152441230.html68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I should be more precise. The little girl isn't offering to take off her clothes. She's offering to do whatever /b/ wants. And what nice suggestions she's getting: "paint a rainbow," "show asshole," "full frontal nude," "sharpie in pooper," "fist fuck," "cut neck," "shit in bed then eat it."68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Oh, and: "show your dick and balls" posted with a picture of Pedobear panting and drooling. The thread has been up for 27 minutes now.68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC) The thread just expired - after 40 minutes.68.153.199.181 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Not verifiable. Most of what is posted on /b/ is old content being reused. We've already been over the fact that /b/ isn't a clean place, stop rehashing what's been said. Gpia7r (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Here is what's verifable about that thread, which I have saved in its near entirety. There was a picture of a little girl, around 8 years old, inviting users to ask her to do something. Beneath the picture of the little girl were three postings of pedobear: one of a real-life pedobear getting a simulated blowjob from a boy while a class of kindergarteners looked on; one of pedobear scrunching up his face in frustration at the fact that the picture of the little girl may have been recycled from an earlier thread (copy pasta); and one of pedobear panting and drooling.68.153.199.181 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I'll use this space to ask again, where are the spelling errors in my source?68.153.199.181 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Since you fail to address what I've said, and can't get off the spelling topic - I take that as you've run out of ammo. Lolicon, one L, not two. Debate over, see below for the kind administrator's input. Gpia7r (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Wow, Lolicon isn't even the word used in the article. But even granted one misspelling, does that officially disqualify source? POINT ME TO THE RULE MANDATING IT DOES.68.153.199.181 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC) It's really not about rules at all. It's about people - free agents all of us - working it out. Let's just work it out. We don't have to go back-and-forth; there's a whole Wiki. Just go find consensus, and then go with it, whatever it ends up saying. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't how it works

It's really not worth all this fighting. Wikipedia documents facts that are reported in certain kinds of sources. We like academic sources, and reputable publications with well-established history of fact-checking. We end up using a lot of inferior sources, too, but when it's cleanup time in any article, they go. Cleanup time happens whenever someone decides to make it happen. In an article on a subject with the notoriety of 4chan, you can expect it to happen every day.

Sure, there are lots of pedobear threads on 4chan, and there are lots of places on the internet where it's mentioned that pedobear is a 4chan meme. The intersection between those sources and the sources we try to use here is very, very small. The best place to document Internet memes is ED; you must already know this. Go make their pedobear article excellent. When pedobear is talked about in the New York Times and BBC, and when some historian of the Internet writes about him, then bring that to Wikipedia.

Yes, the bar is higher for subjects such as this one. That can't be changed by any of us, so we work with reality. Write about pedobear on ED, and write from high quality, reputable published sources on Wikipedia. Go get a degree in history, write a History of Internet Memes, and then come back and cite it. Do your homework. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a source saying, Pedobear is a 4chan meme. http://geekpadshow.com/2009/07/16/pedobear-stuffed-animal-loves-kids-too-much/ It's a blog, but the blog is an employer with a professional staff. Does it not therefore meet reliability requirements? You did not address my source in your missive. Please go into detail. Thanks.68.153.199.181 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There are reliability requirements and my source meets them.68.153.199.181 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Have you read WP:RS? That's the best place to find out about whether a given source is reliable for given content. There's a noticeboard dedicated to precisely that kind of question. I know that we generally avoid blogs, but that some notable and reputable blogs pass muster, at least for certain types of content. I don't claim to be an expert in this area, and I'm certainly not familiar with the blog in question. Why don't we post a question over at WP:RSN... There we go. Let's see what they say. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read the RS. Clicking through it I found the info on eligible blogs. Thank you for your consideration and help in this matter. 74.233.42.206 (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a small sidebar. This article already cites blogs: Gawker several times, and this one... http://fimoculous.com/archive/post-5738.cfm 74.233.42.206 (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another important point: my source, the Geek Pad Show (run through comedy.com), has an editor and its panel of columnists includes professional journalists, thus fulfilling the reliability requirements for a blog (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F). For example, the following columnist is a writer for "Seventeen" and Dave Eggers' prestigious "McSweeney's" publishing house... http://whipitoutcomedy.com/2009/08/06/amandas-bio-or-how-whip-it-out-got-its-groove-back/ 74.233.42.34 (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I ask that you use a shred of common sense. What makes any of these bloggers an expert on the subject? They have no more information than you do. You probably know far more than they do on what happens at /b/ or 4chan or 2chan or anywhere else... The point is - No one person's opinion, whether they be a columnist or not, gives them the authority to say something that cannot be proven. No columnist was perusing /b/ the day it was created and saw what meme's were birthed, what they mean, and how they came to pass. The claim you want to make can't be proven, even if the owner of 4chan himself were to claim it. No one has the knowledge or insight to say such things when it is based on an entirely anonymous and random community. Please consider this before you blindly try to prove something. Gpia7r (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of today's media. People think that because they are on TV and because they can write in a syndicated newspaper... anything they say is truth. Again, I hope that as a journalist you know this isn't true. The burden of proof lies on these editors, bloggers, journalists, and columnists that you are providing, and none of them can provide any sort of proof. There's a problem there, obviously. I suggest you do what was suggested by the Administrator and work on a Pedobear article elsewhere... because at this time, it cannot be verified to a point that it should be included to the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is held at a higher standard than a number of internet articles out there. Not everyone is Neutral, not everyone cares to do their homework. Gpia7r (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If I posted a picture of you, Penneth, on /b/... then got a journalist to write about it, would the following statement be true?

"Images of Penneth are frequently seen on /b/, he has become a wildly popular 4chan meme, and the image represents the raunchiest of behavior." -Random "established and reputable" reporter. Is this a fair statement for someone to say? Surely it's verifiable, right? The image probably wouldn't last over 15 minutes... but it was there, and that's all that matters, right? "Facts" are a fickle thing, and you can't rely on your "sources" to prove anything that's tied to a random and anonymous message board. Gpia7r (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

One more example: The Game is an extremely prominent subject on 4chan, yet 4chan is not mentioned on The Game's article, and The Game is not mentioned on the 4chan article. Who knows, The Game could have been created on 4chan, or 2chan... The Game's article even says the origins are uncertain (much like Pedobear). Neither belong on the other's page because you can't prove a link between them. Pedobear doesn't belong on the 4chan article at this time because it is a prominent Internet Meme, not 4chan Meme. Gpia7r (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If anything, Pedobear appearing in political ads (albeit briefly) belongs in its OWN article, not this one (and certainly not in the lead, who's idea was that?). I've seen nothing asserting notability as it pertains to 4chan, regardless of how immoral you think the character is. --King ÖÖmie III 14:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Gpia and King. My source meets reliability requirements. The blog is an employer with an editor and staff of professional journalists. Above I have posted a link to Wikipedia's reliability requirements for a weblog. Read it, and show me where my source is not in conformance. It is in conformance -- not to mention, my source has ample precedence, as there are three other citations of blogs in the 4chan article, including a citation of a lengthy entry explaining "what is 4chan and /b/". I am adding a line about pedobear today. I will post it in here first, to avoid a war and to allow input from other users. I have played by the rules. Sincerely yours, 74.233.42.141 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I said and stop dismissing it, unless you have no actual substance or argument to counter with. Your "fingers in the ears" ignoring of facts contributes nothing to your cause. "I don't care how right you are, I'm posting it anyway, la la la I can't hear you!" Gpia7r (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You say there's no credibility behind my source, without pointing out how my source contravenes the rules. The bulk of my arguments have not been addressed specifically, except by rambling. I would expect more from an individual who has so readily used courtroom language in this discussion. Also, I encourage you to do some research about the source itself. You'll find that it pays its journalists to identify and post about memes.74.233.42.141 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've said what needed to be said, and the burden of proof is now on you. As it stands, what you have provided is not viable information to add to this article for the various reasons stated above over the past week. You need to back up, re-assess the situation, take the advice of the Administrator, and approach this another time. Gpia7r (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you have not addressed my source. My source pays its journalists to research memes. It has an editor and a HQ. It is a reliable source. Contest that fact, but bland generalities, condescension, repulsive demands to back down and the vaguest allusions to past discussions will not do. If you hadn't noticed, the Administrator in this case has deferred to another board about the viability of my source, so the matter is up in the air. But I am confident enough in my source to go ahead. Thanks! 74.233.42.141 (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Because you have refused to read, apparently, I'll restate the reasoning: "No one has the knowledge or insight to say such things when it is based on an entirely anonymous and random community", "What makes any of these bloggers an expert on the subject? They have no more information than you do."

In any other article that wasn't related to a random and anonymous board, your sources would suffice. This is a situation in which they do not. There is no rule that says because a columnist is paid by a company, what they say is truth. That's absurd of you to try and claim. Gpia7r (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet this article cites columnists and newspapers about other memes, such as lolcats and rickrolling. So why can't I cite my source about Pedobear? To reiterate: a weblog, to be considered a reliable source, has to be an employer and it has to have a staff of professional journalists. My source meets these requisites. What makes these bloggers qualified? They are prominent journalists, they answer to an editor, and their paid job is to research memes. 68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if they are paid or not, or answer to an editor - That still gives them no right to claim something is true when it is absolutely unverifiable. Again, just because they are paid and answer to an editor does not make what they say true or verifiable. PLEASE tell me you understand that? Do you really listen to the news and read every column/article and believe it? Think for yourself, use your head. The fact they "work for an editor" does not make them credible in a situation they have no authority over. You can not verify something that is random and anonymous, that has no permanence. Period. Gpia7r (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You did not explain why it is that journalists and professional sources can be cited about other memes like the lolcat and rickrolling, but not about Pedobear. What makes THOSE memes verifiable, and this one not?

This seems to be how most of your comments are - You apparently read what I say, and point out something else without addressing or verifying you comprehend what was said. Am I wrong on my statement about this situation and the fact that it cannot be accurately sourced? In reference to lolcats and rickrolling, they have moved beyond the Internet and 4chan. Rick Astley rickrolled New York, YouTube has acknowledged it. Lolcats are an odd internet phenominon that are also beyond the grasp of 4chan, a place that merely showcases them on Saturday (primarilly Saturday). Gpia7r (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And Pedobear is also beyond the grasp of 4chan. It is being merchandised throughout the Internet. 68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To follow suit with all the ignoring-of-topics going on, where was that notability again? Why should Pedobear be added to this article at all? --King Öomie 18:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Pedobear has been associated with Obama by a former Republican presidential candidate and leader of the conservatives. The nature of Pedobear as a pedophilic bear popular across the internet is notable enough. Your question begs another question, which I hope you will have the courtesy to answer: what is the notability of the lolcat and rickrolling?

Seriously? Lolcats and Rickrolling have moved significantly beyond 4chan, into popular culture (rickrolling on TV, lolcats all over the internet). Youtube dedicated an entire DAY to rickrolling, and Rick Astley himself rickrolled half of New York. Pedobear appearing in a picture of Obama is nothing more than a hilarious misunderstanding on the part of whoever created it. --King Öomie 19:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Pedobear hasn't moved way beyond 4chan? It isn't being marketed thousands of times on t-shirts? There isn't an entire company with factories in China dedicated to merchandising such t-shirts, as well stuffed dolls and other trinkets? Please.68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing break A

I'd like to let everybody know that I have moved this debate beyond the board. I have contacted Wikipedia's media desk and I will later be contacting the Wikipedia Administration. My source conforms completely with the rules and it's being denied by a hierarchy. Thanks, 68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

They are not Rules, they are guidelines. You aren't applying common sense to your claims, and any attempt to add false information to this article will result in a uw-error2, followed by 3, followed by a warning addressed to Administrators. You have been overwhelmingly opposed, 3rd-opinioons were rejected due to this, and you continue to ignore the facts brought against you. Gpia7r (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The 3rd party opinion is that the source is up in the air. Common sense? I have provided you with three threads larded with Pedobears, and though they may not be classified as verifiable sources, they constitute common sense evidence that pedobear is frequent on 4chan. (I will have more shortly from 4chan's archived threads, with which I could not have possibly tampered.) That is to say nothing of my valid source - which you continue to utterly fail to address. Your argument seems to be that guidelines can be thrown aside in favor of arbitrary editorial opinion. Thank your for your threats. They will be useful as this matter moves ahead. 68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I can have shirts made in China for about $18. And sell them, too. That doesn't get be a shoutout on Wikipedia. Your motivation here strikes me as political. This all came about because of that picture. Are you sure you're not here to tell everyone how mean the republicans are? A HIERARCHY is denying you? No, WE are. Because you're WRONG. --King Öomie 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are dozens of companies marketing these t-shirts. I'm not wrong - Pedobear is a meme on 4chan. I have provided a valid source. You have not so much as contested my source. This is going above your head.

"I'm not wrong - Pedobear is a meme on 4chan." - Cite this. Gpia7r (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I already have. 68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet you fail to see why that is false. Gpia7r (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My source is false? How so? The source, which pays journalists to resesarch memes, states that Pedobear is a 4chan meme. The source accords with the reliability requisites that pertain to weblogs. In fact, there are blogs cited right now, in this very 4chan article, that would appear to be on shakier ground. Why should we trust Gawker, a gossip blog, about the provenance of /b/ and 4chan? Why should we trust that the Fimoculous blog's interview with Moot is not a fabrication? Wikipedia is strict about not citing blogs when it comes to living persons. Whilst the third-party administrator has opened further discussion about my source, two vocal "editors" here are trying to arbitrarily snuff it out, without even making reference to the guidelines. This is appalling stuff, and I'm sure the fine folks at Wikipedia HQ will be interested.68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I created a list of guidelines above that you must have not read, as well as reasons why your sources are not viable. I've said it far too many times, and I'm not repeating myself if you have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. I am not defending what is already in the 4chan article, and you are more than welcome to Be Bold and fix them up if you feel they do not fit. Gpia7r (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You "created a list of guidelines"? Pray tell, what gives your "guidelines" any authority whatever? I'm going by the guidelines of Wikipedia, not the guidelines of some guy on Wikipedia. 68.153.199.181 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I listed WP guidelines. Proves you don't read half the discussion here. Gpia7r (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, now I have to face the accusation that I'm not reading the whole discussion. This after you accused me a few days ago of never having been to 4chan (you don't even know how false that is). Here is the pertinent snippet of the actual Wikipedia guidelines for weblogs: "Are weblogs reliable sources? In many cases, no.... Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer... 68.153.199.181 (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to hurt your own argument? "well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer" No blogger, journalist, or columnist is a 4chan/meme "expert". There is NO such thing, and they have no authority to make decisions on what is and is not a meme. Read below, and please address that, as I've brought it up far too many times Gpia7r (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The journalists at my source are paid to RESEARCH MEMES. Memes are their field. By your logic, since no journalist can possibly determine what is a meme, there should be no articles about memes anywhere on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, your standard of proof does not actually exist except in your mind. In reality, journalists and other sources are accepted when citing memes. This very Wikipedia article is living proof of that. In desperation, you have been been forced into the position of denying that any meme has a verifiable existence. Very existential, but no cigar. 68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a poor argument, that source is fine. Sort of. All of this information is about Pedobear, who you happen to have linked to 4chan. There's really no reason, then, to mention all that stuff about Pedobear HERE, just like you wouldn't talk about Obama's administration, link to his blog, etc. at Chicago, despite him coming from there. You should get to work on a pedobear ARTICLE. --King Öomie 19:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Great! You've admitted that my source is fine. Did you read it? So you know, it refers to Pedobear as a "4chan meme." That's not a connection I "happen" to have made. It's in the source.

Yeah, it is. That's why I said it. And if you're gonna mince words, I think I will too- I didn't "admit" anything (and not only because you'd use "concede" rather than "admit" in this instance). I plainly stated it.

Any news on that political issue? Why do you want this in the article at all? --King Öomie 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I say you admitted to it because earlier you called the source an advertisement, then switched to saying that "blogs are not reliable sources" (a patent untruth). So yes, yours was an admission. I have already explained why pedobear is notable. I will not reiterate my points for the third or fourth time. I will say that this has nothing whatsoever to do with politics or my political bias (which you know little to nothing of) - for you to imply that it does is tawdry and downright irrelevant. Statements such as "Pedobear is a 4chan meme" or "Pedobear was posted with a picture of Barack Obama in a Pat Buchanan column" are facts, not political opinions. 68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is wrong to come to that assumption, and only common sense can verify that. Pedobear is an Internet Meme, and should be treated as such. It is not a 4chan-exclusive meme, and therefore does not belong on the 4chan article. Gpia7r (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You said: "It is not a 4chan-exclusive meme, and therefore does not belong on the 4chan article." Lolcats, which are in the article, are also not 4chan exclusive. Incredibly, you said so yourself on August 11: "lolcats aren't exclusive to 4chan either, but there are onrunning websites like icanhazcheezburger that constantly post lolcats in a non 4chan light." So here's your logic: Pedobear can't be in this article because it's not exclusive to 4chan, but lolcats can be in this article though they're not exclusive to 4chan. I think this blatant contradiction deserves some explanation.68.153.199.181 (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean from that other thing I said that you didn't read? "I am not defending what is already in the 4chan article, and you are more than welcome to Be Bold and fix them up if you feel they do not fit." Gpia7r (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as the lolcats meme is included in the article - as long as no effort is made by you the "Editor" or any other "editors" to remove it - I consider it the purest fallacy and hypocrisy to exclude pedobear from the 4chan article. You spend literally days trying to block pedobear on the grounds that it isn't a 4chan-exclusive meme, whilst devoting not a drop of energy to removing lolcats, a meme that, by your standard, should be excluded just the same. What an editor you are. Too lazy to edit out lolcats, a showcased meme, and too strongheaded to admit pedobear: and too arrogant to admit the contradiction in terms. Precedent is on my side, and King has admitted my source is fine (King - I say "admitted" because you have on several prior occasions denied that it's a valid source). Since it means so much to you, why don't you "Be Bold," as you put it with such condenscension, and "fix them up." For I have no problem with their inclusion in the article - none at all. Only you apparently do.68.153.199.181 (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is your new argument, does that mean you agree on the fact that a journalist, no matter who he's paid by and hired by, has no authority to decide what is a meme? You never addressed that. Oh, you like falacy? "Pedobear is an internet meme. 4chan posts internet memes. Therefore, Pedobear is a 4chan meme." If you want those articles removed (which was not the topic of this discussion, and not my job to do if I decide not to), then discuss it with whoever put them up. Gpia7r (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No! I absolutely don't agree with you. If we couldn't rely on journalists and others to tell us reasonably what memes there are out there, Wikipedia would have no information on memes. As I said before, I have no problem with keeping lolcats, rickrolling and other non-4chan-exclusive memes in the article. For you to say Pedobear can't be included because it's not 4chan-exclusive when those memes already listed in the article are non-4chan-exclusive defies any sense. It's desperate nonsense. There is something called precedent, my friend, and it's on my side. By the way, nice job falsely quoting me above. I've never said anything like, "Pedobear is an internet meme, etc. etc." But by putting that in quotes you imply that I have said such a thing. Talk about "falacy" [sic]; what claptrap. My argument is not that Pedobear is an Internet Meme that's posted on 4chan. My argument is that it is a 4chan meme. See source. 68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Never quoted you, but that is an example of this falacy. Again, read closely and understand what you're saying before you spout nonsense. "Desperate nonsense" is grasping at a different reason to add it without addressing the reasons not to add it in every new argument and comment you make. We can both use as many big words and argument speak that we want, but it comes down to the fact that your sources have no authority to say what they say. Rickrolling and lolcats belong elsewhere, move them. I didn't come here to discuss them, but I don't agree with them being on this page unless they are more prominently featured elsewhere, such as Internet Meme. Your argument that it is a 4chan meme is wrong, because there is no source that you have provided that is able to make such a bold claim. Pedobear is an internet meme, you agree with this? Pedobear is posted on 4chan (as well as many other websites), you agree with this? Pedobear is NOT a 4chan meme because of those two statements. Pedobear does not belong on this page, but if you can provide enough information, belongs on it's own page. The "journalism" comment only applies to this situation in which the topic at hand (4chan) is NOT a place that can carry any sort of solid information or claim as a fact. It's random. It's anonymous. No one person has the power to look back through every post on it and come up with some sort of professional meme statement. Gpia7r (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing break 2

I'd love to see a well-written page on Pedobear. I agree, it simply does not belong here. I'm not sure if there's enough verifiable information out there to make an entire page on it, but it would be interesting to see. Maybe something on Internet Meme. Gpia7r (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Meme article should be deleted because, as you've made clear above in a Sartre-like fashion, no one but nobody can prove the existence of a meme. 68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose adding the following sentence somewhere in the article (exactly where can be determined later): "Pedobear is a 4chan meme that is widely merchandised on the Internet [2] [3][4]. A cartoon pedophile bear, it was mysteriously pictured with Obama in a column by former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan."[5][6][7] 68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the first cited link states that Pedobear is a "4chan meme", and the 4th cited link also connects pedobear with 4chan.68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

First link has no authority to make such a claim, and is wrong for the reasons I've stated before. It is unverifiable, unreliable. The claim cannot be made by a column or journalist. The 4th cited link has no authority to connect Pedobear with 4chan. No one knows who created Pedobear, and where it originated. Gpia7r (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The first link has authority for reasons I have stated over and over again. 1) It is an employer with an editor and a staff of journalists. 2) It pays its staff to research memes. For those two reasons it exactly conforms to Wikipedia's reliability requirements for a weblog, posted elsewhere in this forum. You cannot substitute official guidelines for your own arbitrary opinion. Here's reason #3 for why the source is OK - another editor has already called it "fine". You say a journalist can't make a claim about a meme, but this is purely your belief, and it is frankly ludicrous. The Wikipedia article on 4chan explains memes by citing journalists and columnists, so your argument is absurd and you are holding me to an impossible standard of proof that you yourself invented and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the article. What you are saying: no meme is verifiable, and even though other memes are mentioned in the article, Pedobear cannot be. We will see what happens tomorrow when I post whatever version of the Pedobear statement is finalized. I would like to hear more input from other people. If the edit is reverted, I will contest my case with Wikipedia HQ, as is within my rights. 74.233.42.141 (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Weren't you supposed to post it yesterday and today as well? Either way, you're still missing every point. 1) Employers w/ editors and staffs of journalists are not authorities on Internet Meme's, or 4chan. That is absurd, and they can say whatever they want. They can say 4chan is brimming with pedophilia - And you would believe it. Wikipedia has a higher standard than this employer/editor/journalist you speak of. You are going to be censored for the mere fact that you are trying to say that JUST because it's an employer/editor/journalist, it's fact. This is silly, and I seriously hope you know this. 2) Pays it's staff to research memes? Are you kidding? No reputable journalism staff would be paid to do something so stupid. Even if they did, 4chan is not citable or sourcable, and whoever those journalists are, their information would be invalid because of this. 3) The source verifies the existence of Pedobear, something we did 4 days ago. Make a new article, it doesn't belong here. Gpia7r (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I delayed posting because I wanted to find a way to resolve this peaceably. The staff is paid to research memes; its other job is to dig up funny videos and other comedy on the Internet. Don't forget what you're arguing: that no journalist has the authority to verify any meme. You have already said that all the other memes should be thrown out of the article, but you won't put your money where your mouth is and delete them. That's because your only intention here is to block me. You have raised an impossible standard of proof which you will not apply to the rest of the article, only to my insertion. That is practically a living definition of fallacy. 74.233.42.141 (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's ok that they're paid to do that, good for them! But I think when it comes to a place that needs to have truths and facts, it doesn't fit. You just can't verify something that's random, anonymous, and purged constantly. It just keeps coming down to "It is because I say it is." I said the memes on this article belong elsewhere. They are reputable for their own reasons, but I don't agree with them being on 4chan. That's another discussion/debate I'm not having, and if you don't like them, remove them. I don't care enough, and that has no weight on this debate. I don't care if you edit or if you're blocked, I don't intend for you to be blocked, don't draw such conclusions. I just greatly disagree with the fact that you want this into the article SO bad to continue debating after an Administrator suggested you do it elsewhere. Make it on ED. Make it's own article. Make a brand-new Internet Meme page that works better than the current one. Do great things! But this single thing you want to do just does not fit. I'm debating it because you have, in the past, kept re-adding it after it was removed by other people who obviously don't agree with it's insertion. Gpia7r (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So you "think" it doesn't fit, official guidelines notwithstanding. And where do you derive such authority that what you "think" is final? You "don't care enough" to remove the other memes - I think that speaks to your commitment, or lack thereof, to the general accuracy of this article. The other memes do have weight in this debate - for if other memes that are not exclusive to 4chan are included in this article then there is no reason that Pedobear shouldn't be included because it, like all the other memes, isn't exclusive to 4chan. I have said about three times, and I will say again: I do not intend to remove the other memes because I do not disagree with their inclusion. You do, so it is contingent upon you to follow through on your own logic, and keep this article accurate by deleing them. Otherwise, there is no logic to your argument. Again, the Administrator has left the source up in the air and you are blatantly misrepresenting the opinion of the Administrator. 74.233.42.141 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Gpia - What are your qualifications on this board? Are you an editor? If so, what authority do you have and what do you base that authority on? 74.233.42.141 (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm an editor on wikipedia. I watch controversial articles for vandalism. I revert vandalism (such as unsourced, poorly sourced, or incorrectly sourced claims). I try to keep articles factual. Good enough?Gpia7r (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. 74.233.42.141 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to a helpful Wikipedia user on another board, I have a found an academic paper from Georgia Tech verifying that Pedobear is a 4chan meme. http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/28098. The following is a quote from that paper: "Pedobear” is a 4chan meme. Originally a Japanese character named Kuma or “bear”, it was adopted by 4chan users early on in the site’s history. The character is used as a marker for Lolita‐complex or lolicon, i.e. drawn images of prepubescent girls in sexually suggestive poses, or other behavior that may suggest pedophilia. In some cases it is also used to describe photographic images which skirt the line of being child pornography as well as in ironically contrasting situations, such as a picture of someone with the image on hand posing with To Catch a Predator host Chris Hansen. 74.233.42.141 (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I could write a thesis on that for my college degree as well, saying otherwise.

From WP:RS-

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue

Some kid graduating college is hardly any better than some journalist making a silly claim. Gpia7r (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a professional blog and an academic paper both stating that Pedobear is a 4chan meme. If you like, I will also furnish you with dozens of archived 4chan threads (archives, meaning I could not have tampered with them) that either contain Pedobear or are dedicated entirely to Pedobear. As for the paper, it would appear that it was vetted by committee. The following names are listed as advisors on the paper... Committee Chair: Celia Pearce; Committee Member: Carl DiSalvo; Committee Member: Fox Harrell; Committee Member: Jay Bolter 74.233.42.141 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I added Pedobear to the list of "popularized" memes. If you will notice, the ones preceeding it all have their own page. Could we please end this here and keep the suggestion that Pedobear deserves it's own page? Also, as Pedobear was a slight part of the article, I can't see the kid proving that to those "advisors", and showing them /b/. The blog/thesis still have no authority or citations of their own to call it a 4chan meme. Archived threads do not prove it to be a 4chan meme, but simply an Internet meme. Gpia7r (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can dismiss my sources and at the same time add a reference to Pedobear to the article, but I will accept it. I also believe, like you, that there should be some mention of CP in future. I quote you: "Does it deserve to be mentioned? Absolutely, we know it happens on very rare occasions, but that doesn't deserve an essay on the subject." Maybe not an essay, but at least a mention. In any case, this debate has exhausted, and satisfied, me and I will leave it at this for now. Thank you for your consideration, 74.233.42.141 (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't you realize that once an argument gets to this point, you will not convince him? Neither of you will. There's too much invested.

I know that arguing on the Internet is "fun", but it is a dead-end strategy. Stop wasting time and space talking to him, and go talk to other people. Build consensus among people who haven't already decided that you're wrong, and come back with it, letting it speak for you.

This back-and-forth is pointless. Stop. Walk away. Talk to me, not to him. Yell at me if it helps. Yes, I'm addressing both of you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you guys are going to generate this much text, it is considered very courteous to insert occasional subheaders. They help prevent edit conflicts, and they help us all keep track of different threads of the conversation. Please consider using them. I'd like to have some input here, but the format is obnoxious.

Precisely what claim needs to be verified here? Is is that Pedobear originated on 4chan? Is it that Pedobear was popularized on 4chan? Is it that Pedobear is one of the most important things to mention about 4chan (lead-paragraph-worthy)? The answers to those three questions are "The source doesn't make that claim", "no problem", and "the source does not make that claim". Which is it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly my issue. I've yet to see why on earth this should go in the lead, or even the article itself. Just because it's technically sourced? Do you have any idea how long the article would be if we added information about EVERYTHING ever published in 3rd-party sources?

If I head over to Mel Gibson, I don't expect to see his favorite color in the lead, let alone cited eight times. It's just not important. It just feels like you've decided this IS important because the character is 'heinous'. Well, Heinous doesn't mean Famous. --King Öomie 13:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If we add Pedobear, then we may as well add every age-old meme on 4chan. The Battletoads meme is arguably more "important" and "popular" than Pedobear to the point of disrupting business at Gamestops all over the world, yet I don't see you arguing about that being included in the article. Just because it's on 4chan doesn't mean it's important to the article...This isn't ED. rzrscm (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It comes down to the "relative weight" section of WP:NPOV. Is Pedobear a "4chan meme" that is so much more prominent in 4chan's existence than other "4chan memes" (whatever that ends up meaning)? If we're making a list of things most worth knowing about 4chan, does Pedobear make the top 5? As represented by proportionate coverage in sources? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I have requested mediation on the above subject. I ask that both Kingoomieiii and Penneth go to the link, sign that they agree to have this issue mediated, and let the committee handle this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/4chan

Thanks Gpia7r (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I will not as of now agree to mediation when I have so clearly demonstrated my case. "King" has called my source "fine." Gpia's last reason for not including pedobear is that it's not 4chan-exclusive - even though every meme already in the article is also not 4chan-exclusive. Mediation is not, at this point, necessary. Thanks, 68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The standard is not to convince one (1) other person, be they King, Queen or Prince. If one person said your source is "fine", that's different from having built consensus for the edit. Have you built consensus, or are there still unaddressed concerns? In particular, have you addressed the "relative weight" issue? You'll know when you've got consensus, because others will line up to make your edit for you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

4chan = Fortune

Is 4chan a play on the word 'fortune'? If true, this should probably be mentioned somewhere in the heading.--Arrows98 (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's not. The name comes from "2chan", an similar (japanese) imageboard. --King ♣ Talk 05:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There are actually a number of "chans," which were originally (and primarily are) Japanese anime forums, such as 7chan, 2chan, etc. I suspect that the use of the number 4 may have been a jab at the Japanese--since 4chan is an American site--as they consider 4 to be extremely unlucky, referring to it as "the death number." Were chans an American invention, we might similarly see a Japanese-owned board called 13chan. DuckFerret (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to write all this out for the empteenth time but here goes: 2chan.net is the homepage of Futaba Channel. Futaba is Japanese for "two-leaf". The play on words, which was purposefully made by moot, is that the parallel name for 4chan.org would be Yotsuba Channel. Thus Yotsuba is 4chan's mascot. Shii (tock) 04:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this story posted on 4chan at some point? If it was and we can find a link, it should be included in the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Memes section

I believe that the memes section should be removed from the article. It is hardly relevant to 4chan and it only lists two examples, hardly a comprehensive list of 4chan memes. Maybe it could be put into List of popular internet memes? 64.56.249.128 (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree - I can see that. If they were here, why not on the 2chan or ebaums articles, as well? A centralized area for some of the more mainstreamed ones would be helpful, I believe. Gpia7r (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• strong disagree It shows 4chan's impact on the culture at large, not just online but in real life as well. The section is relevent to the article, if you feel the section is not strong enough try adding some more memes to the list. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong Disagree It's highly worthwhile and is probably one of the sections here that is least trivia-based. Heck, due to the impact and coverage of Rickrolling alone it needs to be mentioned here. The section could use some work, perhaps include a bit more, but due to the tricky nature of sourcing this topic inclusion would be difficult. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Largely Antifurry

It doesn't seem to mention anywhere that 4chan is largely Antifurry and often bans any Furries/Fur art that appears on their boards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, STFU...It definitely doesn't need to. rzrscm (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So ridiculously beyond mentioning that it doesn't matter. Besides the fact that it ignores the content of /d/, what kind of precedent does that set? Any site that ridicules furries has to mention it on Wiki? Holy hell, I can't imagine what the Fox News page would look like then. Assuming good faith in the anon, this is still a silly idea, imho. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I could see a compromise where Wikipedia itself adopted the same Anti-furry stance an began banning, citing 4chan as its inspiration. But in all seriousness, basically any site that deals with furries (that isn't actually RUN by furries) bans heavily and ridicules profusely. Such is the life of a militant fetishist. --King Öomie 14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that would cause WP to lose some good administrators. Anyhow, 4chan being antifurry is like saying that Mudkip had a meme. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand at worst and uselessly tangential at best. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your example is ironic, since the entry for Mudkip does mention the meme as well as links to List of Internet phenomena. :P Still, the point is that it is an inconsequential note here, and while I don't entirely discount the possibility that you could find a source on 4chan being antifurry, I would lose a fair amount of respect for the involved parties. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

/B/ murders

Should these two be added? http://www.majhost.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2339699 and http://www.majhost.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2339619 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.68.185 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You can fake a screenshot, you know. Shii (tock) 01:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No way to prove that the screenshots are legit. If you can find some reputable sources then sure, that would actually be interesting to include. I don't think you'll find any, though. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

dumb prank with news mentioning 4chan

I don't think it's worth documenting but here's news sources. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... it could make for an amusing mention. I'm all for including anything with enough sources. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Of thsoe, the most reliable is The Register, but it is notable for a cynical slant on most of its reporting Shii (tock) 02:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You underrate the Inquirer. Barring the obvious flights of fantasy, in recent times they have broken more and more stories based on the fact that other new sources wouldn't touch the story for various reasons. Unless there are more references, though, I don't think that it is significant enough to mention, amusing as it may be. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

adding link to hebrew wikipedia

please add a link to the Hebrew wiki article. he:4chan

Added Gpia7r (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

confusion with the group anonymous

A lot of this thread seems to be focused more on the group anonymous rather than the actual image board 4chan.org which was based off of the Japanese board 2chan.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.109.202.188 (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no it isn't. The article focuses on 4chan and events that are well established to be linked with the site in the media...The article's going to have a strong focus on events linked to /b/, which are directly linked to "Anonymous", given that it's the most popular board on the site and gets the most media attention,. rzrscm (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)