Talk:Pepe the Frog/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Pepe the Frog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

CN tag for "Symbol of Alt-Right"

I have added Citation needed tag to the sentence regarding Pepe being a "symbol of the Alt-Right". I did this for 2 reasons:

It's unclear what is meant by "symbol". Is Pepe literally meant as the symbol that is to represent the Alt-Right? That is, if a politician were to run for office under the "Alt-Right" banner, would a frog be its mascot, similar to the Donkey or Elephant for mainstream parties? I find it hard to believe that this is what was intended by the writer, and is likely just a carry over from my second concern.
I think that due to the current popular nature of Alt-Right politics, that it is difficult to ascribe a specific symbol to a political movement (party...?), described by Wikipedia itself as a, "loose group of people with far-right ideologies". I find it hard to believe that all, or even a majority of Alt-Right supporters would even be aware of Pepe's existence prior to the ADL hate symbol listing and media coverage that followed immediately afterwards. I think that due to the high profile, strongly emotional response and emotional opinions of what Alt-Right represents or means, it is suspect that Pepe specifically would be linked to that topic. There have been many articles that have parroted back the same phrase of Pepe being a "symbol" of the Alt-Right a few times, and I think that that political rhetoric was then transferred onto this article. In my opinion, it seems readily apparent when the Alt-Right is described as a "controversial movement" instead of something less opinionated or more neutral, such as a: counter-culture, conservative movement, or grassroots movement. Controversial, in the context that it is being used, is very much a dog-whistle term to refer to a topic as racist, without doing so overtly.

Unless a definitive leader for the Alt-Right can be readily be sourced, who has actively endorsed the image of Pepe as a "symbol" of their movement (and preferably explain what exactly that means), I see no reason to remove this tag. If you feel the need to do so, please disucss it here prior to removal. Thanks. Sawta (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Bias

I understand this meme has existed long before several major news outlets decided to conflate it with white supremacy. The fact that this has been allowed to filter into an 'encyclopaedia' article is concerning. The meme's appropriation by white supremacists or any other hate group should definitely be referenced. But the fact that this article opens with "Pepe the Frog is a popular Internet meme and symbol of white supremacy" represents a level of attention to fact as acute as a tabloid gossip magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjenkin1987 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You should at least read the first sentence of the article before you start talking about it, as it does not say what you think it does. All the points you've made are either false or completely irrelevant to the article as it's actually written. 100.36.197.179 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Weaponized Autisim

Thinking about adding this to the project but not sure where it fits and this article looks like a suitable place. Would it be wrong? TeeVeeed (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Why here, exactly? From my understanding of that phrase it has been widely used on 4chan and other such places for quite a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, as it was used by both sides in US election 2016 along with the Pepe meme. Maybe it does need an article but I'm wondering if it is offensive or inappropriate somehow for WP although it is a "thing" and it was used in propagating Pepe but not sure about reliable sources either?02:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)edit to add TeeVeeed (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Richard Spencer

As multiple sources have reported, Spencer was answering a question his Pepe pin on his jacket when the famous punch happened [1] [2]. Kind of surprised to see no mention of it here, did I misss it or is there some reason it's not there? Seems notable as it immediately spawned nearly as many memes as Pepe himself.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Done per WP:SILENCE. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Kek/Kekism/Kekistan edit war

Could we please discuss this here instead of edit warring? That's be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Having a hard time finding any third-party coverage of the Kekistan stuff. Since it's only sourced to the YouTuber's video and KnowYourMeme, it should absolutely be removed due to a lack of sourcing / significance. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the sourcing is weak I'll agree, did the best I could but despite this meme being literally everywhere right now, it hasn't seen much secondary sourcing except on 'know your meme'. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2017

This edit request to Pepe the Frog has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

With demands being made for a Kekistan Republic, ^[1] Nash-Jones declared Bir Tawil to be Kekistan. ^[2] Kevinthomas1864 (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Nope. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Well (not) done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Note: Closing as answered. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Origins of KEK

"kek" originated as a Korean onomatopoeia, ㅋㅋㅋ, which roughly makes repeated "K" sounds. It is meant to represent laughter, and was used on Star Craft between Korean players when Korean language compatibility wasn't available. This is the root of the use in World of Warcraft. http://et.worldofwarcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Orcish mentions it, but you can even look back at the old "Zerg Rush" meme as evidence. 184.54.173.22 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Review of wording

Someone should review how this page is worded so certain points won't be put in a biased negative light and so not to add unnecessary details that could show a bias. Pro Yankee (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

there was some stuff that this applies to added to the 'kekistan' section today that I have removed. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Kekistan

Hi Insertcleverphrasehere. Before reverting every single one of my edits wholesale, why not try discussing it on talk? Or, err, leaving a reason in your edit summary? It's a bit rude, to say the least. Especially that you marked such a revert as 'minor', which it blatantly is not. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I was just editing a comment and restoring one of your edits unrelated to the Kekistan section. The rollback function marked it as minor automatically, which was unintentional (I am new to using it and was not aware that it would not give me a chance to add an edit summary. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Re: Heat Street, it's essentially Breitbart-lite. It has no established history of fact checking, and the intent in establishing the publication was as a provider of specifically partisan/biased coverage. We can use it for the opinions of authors on it, but we really should not be using it to state fact. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I rolled back your edits of the Kekistan section because they were all related to the removal of the Heat Street source, and it was the only way to restore that content without manually adding each ref in again. I'd like to discuss why you think it is not a reliable source? To my knowledge it has not been discussed at RSN and I see it being cited commonly on the wiki. Big surprise to me that you would categorically state it as unreliable. Is there something I missed? — Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I honestly thought people editing in this topic area would be aware of the nature of Heat Street. It's roughly on par with The Daily Mail, except newer and without a newspaper. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I seem to remember us having a discussion about Heatstreet before, over on Carl Benjamin, note that Heat Street is still used as a source over there. Consensus was not that Heat Street was unreliable then, and I don't see how anything has changed. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

So you are aware of the contentiousness, yet still chose to revert everything I'd done without discussing it? Jee whiz. Please note the last comment there (I made it!)- "If the material being added is uncontroversial, sure. I'd suggest including the writer as well, e.g. "Jane Doe, a journalist for Heat Street, wrote that..." or similar wording.". E.g., Heat Street is reliable for the opinions of its writers (as I've already stated in this very section), but not facts. I'm going to suggest you self-revert. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Use of the Daily Mail was decided by RfC over on RSN (which in full disclosure I voted to be 'unreliable'). Heat Street has none of the hallmarks that led to the Daily Mail being 'banned' as a source (i.e. A reputation for complete fabrication of stories etc). — Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, there is no contentiousness. I am going to decline to self revert. I don't agree that Heat Street is an unreliable source, and I'd like to see a few others weigh in on the issue before butchering the section. In any case, removing the referencing like you did without also reverting all of the information that was added along with the source (that was sourced to the Heat Street reference) is not the way it should be done. We would have to go all the way back to the version before I rewrote the Kekistan section using the Heat Street source. Reverting back to your version is not a solution, it creates a citation needed mess. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no doubt that information can be found for some of the content which would be unsourced without Heat Street- removing it all would not support the encyclopedia. We just need to be less lazy and find better sources than a partisan rag. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

After having been involved in that discussion, you don't find it contentious at all? Curious! Perhaps it would be easier to focus on the inverse of the problem - why do you believe that Heat Street is a reliable source? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Pretty much all news sources these days are partisan one way or the other to some extent. That doesn't make them 'unreliable'. We also have a cite to the Gaurdian in the section, which is about as far left as Heat Street is right. It isn't about being lazy, some articles, such as this one, are not covered by centrist sources, so we have to make it work using a balance of sources. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As for the previous discussion and contentiousness, the consensus previously was that Heat Street was retained as a source in the previous article. This to me points to a situation where we have a previous discussion resulting in retention of the source, and nothing I could find on RSN disagrees with that. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Heat Street was used for one thing, not a statement of fact, and nobody seemed to disagree with my last comment. I don't think the conclusion you're drawing is the conclusion a reasonable outside observer would form on reading that discussion. It's interesting to me that you believe the Guardian is far left, or partisan, or something like that. Would you please explain to me in detail what particular bias you believe the Guardian displays? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

See my comment below, not interested in getting into an edit war here, and not really interested in another huge discussion about a source. I am off to bed mate. Might take the source to RSN at some point soon as it seems overdue. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I'll take your suggestion and start a RSN discussion, and ping you there. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As a complete aside- the rollback tool should really be only be used in cases of obvious vandalism/ban evasion or on pages in your user space - not when reverting good faith edits. There's a more indepth list of when to use it here, which you should read. Specifically, "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool.". PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, It was accidental use. I meant to use Twinkle's "Rollback" function, which works differently to the rollback tool but confusingly named similarly. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted this 'accidental use' of the rollback tool, contrary to its intended use. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Lovely. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war over this, but you might want to add a bunch of citation needed tags all over the place where you have removed the heat street citations. Though as I have actually been following the sources on this, there are no other sources for this information so you might as well revert it to the version it was a few days ago [3]. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Pepe the Frog from the Frog in Boiling Water Oral History

I think of the the factors that has lent such great resonance and acceptance of the Frog as a leader of the Alt-Right is due to a story that I heard during the 1970's, circulated primarily by christian conservatives concerned about the diminishing morality of the American people and the gradual erosion of what they considered to be "their" rights. The story went that a frog placed in boiling water would immediately jump out, and escape, but what "they" were doing (the bad, immoral people) was slowly increasing the temperature of the water that the frog was in, so that it did not notice when the water eventually boiled, and the frog died.

This was part of my white, "oral history" as child and now 40 years later the frog is sometimes portrayed as either a God, or as a healthy, virile and masculine male, fully capable of defending himself against "them". I submit this on the chance that others also have this sense of shared "white" history, and if there is perhaps some documentation, i.e. "reliable sources" that will help IMPROVE THE ARTICLE by tracing the roots of the American Alt-Right movement, and the ascension of a fictional frog as their leader. It's 40 years later, and the frog has escaped the boiling water, and is now threatening to put the Jews back into the "oven". I cannot help but think that a lot of these "kitchen" metaphors have some kind of common denominator.2001:550:1D05:3:0:0:0:20E (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

BRD discussion for my edit (Singal's article, ADL page, Furie voting)

MobileDiff/742597775

@Zaostao: @ZN3ukct: I am not quite sure why my edit was reverted. This is a BRD discussion.

Furie voting for Clinton was directly discussed in the previous (Esquire magazine) citation.
The ADL "Hate on Display" page writes
", it is important to examine use of the meme only in context. The mere fact of posting a Pepe meme does not mean that someone is racist or white supremacist. However, if the meme itself is racist or anti-Semitic in nature, or if it appears in a context containing bigoted or offensive language or symbols, then it may have been used for hateful purposes. "
Jesse Singal and his NY magazine article is already part of the article, and I tried to summarize him. Can you help?

Thanks. - Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Matt Furie's political activity is unrelated to the article subject, and the Jesse Singal bit was an undue quote. You could re-add/refactor the specificity on the ADL if you want but keep in mind recentism—I personally think there's enough info on the affair as is. Zaostao (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that the ADL clarification can reasonably be expected to be less relevant in 10 years. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Re:Singal- do you feel that the link to the article should be taken out of the "further reading" section? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Matt Furie is currently a redirect to this article. Someone can start and article on him, and add his political activity there if they want. Emily Goldstein (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It may work as a subsection to this article. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: please come and offer your perspective. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

What all of these conversations regarding the possible "racist" nature of Pepe is that the Alt-Right practices "meta-politics" and asserts their belief that some values are transcendent to others. "Normies" believe that making the determination that something is, or is not "racist" is and end-point, some kind of final destination. The entire point of the Alt-Right is to disagree with that assessment. Whether Pepe is or is not racist is secondary to some other, larger and more important point. The Alt-Right asserts that our cultural values are more important than your cultural values. We assert that we are smarter than you, than the ADL, than the entirety of the Establishment to include the entirety of the Wikipedia Editors, en toto. To merely judge Pepe "racist" is to miss the point. To convey that absence of the point in the Wikipedia Article PROVES the point the Alt-Right is making. However important "racism" (or sexism, or homophobia, etc...) may be, they are LESS IMPORTANT than something else. Our values are transcendent to yours. Our values are more important than yours. You aren't really qualified to judge us, or our values, and that is why we deride, and mock you, for being the simple-minded cretins and hypocrites that you are. Continuing to cite feeble, one-dimensional and intellectually corrupt organizations like the ADL as the end-all, be-all final word on "reliable" will only inspire continued mocking, derision, trolling, etc... We're conquering CNN. Wikipedia is most definitely on the list, as Wikipedia relies on organizations like CNN for it's unmitigated bullshit. Posting this in the hope that at least one Wikipedia Editor gets a clue, and wakes up. CNN is dead. We held it's head under the water of the toilet and it choked to death on it's own feces. Wikipedia is not next, but it definitely is on the kill-list. My suggestion, to IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE ARTICLE (and all articles) is to wake up and smell the coffee, as there is a shit storm brewing in Kekistan, and it is heading in Wikipedia's direction.2001:550:1D05:3:0:0:0:20E (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Define 'Cuckistan' in article

Cuckistan and Normistan need defining or random readers won't know what they mean

1.126.48.87 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Trust the SPLC to take a meme seriously enough to call it a 'fictional history', but you asked so here you go: [4] [5]. These should answer your question with just as many if not more questions. :D — Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

First sentence: Pepe is a cartoon character, not a meme

I find it concerning that Pepe is described as a meme in the very first sentence. He is first and foremost a cartoon character, which should be the primary focus of the article.

The article is extremely biased, and I learned practically nothing about the original Boy's Club comic book from reading it. Pepe's meme-status prior to the election is barely touched upon, and is mentioned solely as a segue into sensationalist gossip about the presidential election (which makes up a vast majority of the article).

Someone should really consider re-writing the article completely, or at least get it back on track. What we have currently is political propaganda, and surreal utterings like "Kek references are closely associated with the alt-right and Donald Trump".

212.130.98.229 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request for Kekistan redirect

This edit request to Kekistan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add "R to section" for Kekistan, which redirects here. HotdogPi 00:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Biggest meme of Tumblr, 2015

New York noted in 2015 that Pepe was the most popular meme on its site – I think this should be included alongside 4chan in the lead (e.g.: "By 2015, it had become one of the most popular memes used on 4chan." –> "By 2015, it had become one of the most popular memes used on 4chan and Tumblr.^[1]" (Emphasis and citation added). MeemSupreem (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

References

^ Hathaway, Jay (December 9, 2015). "Tumblr's Biggest Meme of 2015 Was Pepe the Frog". New York Magazine. Retrieved September 13, 2017.

Done. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 21:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issues in Kekistan section

So I see two major NPOV issues in the Kekistan section. The first is a link to an article that seems to be heavily biased, the headline itself says that Pepe is being used for "fascism." Should that kind of loaded language serve as a source? It also places free speech in scare quotes when discussing the rally where the flags appeared. If my understanding is correct scare quotes are an NPOV issue are they not?Javerthugo (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your understanding is not correct. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

To expand on Peter's rather unhelpful comment above, the section is largely based on the Southern Poverty Law Center source, which is considered to be highly reliable in most cases (though I do personally agree that these guys don't really understand the internet very well in this particular case and have missed many details). In any case, you have to accept that any online movement will eventually be, in part, defined by its most vocal and controversial members and there are plenty of trolls in the Kekistan movement (you could almost define the movement as trolling). — Insert CleverPhrase Here 17:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That kek flag image was hilarious. You guys need to lighten up. Kek and Pepe the frog memes are a parody of society as a whole. DrSukMadik (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Kekistan Should Get It's Own Wikipedia Article

I think the meme has grown to the point that Kekistan merits it's own wikipedia article.2001:550:1D05:3:0:0:0:20E (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It is notable enough, and I agree that the Kekistan meme is probably not as intrinsically linked to Pepe the Frog for it to be necessary that it stays here. However, we have redirects from Kekistan and Republic of Kekistan that aim to the Kekistan section on this article, and the Kekistan section really is not fleshed out enough to warrant its own article. Indeed, fragmenting relatively obscure but related topics into different articles generally has the effect of lessening the traffic on all the topics, as people are less likely to come across the topic, which is bad for our readers (the way it is now people come to read about Pepe and end up learning about Kekistan, people come to read about 'Kek' and end up learning about Pepe and Kekistan). — Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"I agree that the Kekistan meme is probably not as intrinsically linked to Pepe the Frog for it to be necessary that it stays here." I concur. Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems like reliable sources overwhelmingly link it more to the alt-right in general than to Pepe specifically. Based on these sources, moving this section to that article would make more sense. Creating its own article would be a magnet for vandalism, and it looks like a lot of work for little benefit to me. If most sources are explanations of the meme as part of a longer explanation of the alt-right or neo-Nazi rallies or whatever, this should probably stay a subsection for now. Those are the sources I've seen.

Regardless of where this is, the article should reflect sources, so saying this coverage is too much about the alt-right is misguided. This should match sources. Saying this belongs elsewhere or deserves its own article is a separate issue. Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Attribution of Heat Street

PeterTheFourth, to address your recent concerns, I changed "reported" to "according to". I restored the other citations as it was not clear what you were objecting to, as many of the statements are clearly attributed, and others are trivial with no need for attribution (clearly stated in the edit summaries where I added them). I also brought up these trivial citations on RSN and the only one you objected to was the one regarding Sargon as a BLP concern (this was cited with attribution). Please let me know if you consider any of these unattributed statements non-trial and why and I'll work with you to rectify the issue as best I can. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If a source is unreliable for statement of fact, we do not cite it for fact, and we do not write 'according to (unreliable source)', 'reported by (unreliable source)', or similar things. We can cite people who have written for it for their opinion, in the case that this opinion is WP:DUE, and only this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere The RSN discussion most certainly did not establish that Heat Street was 'fine with attribution', just that like every low quality source the only way to use it where relevant was attributing it to the author, if and only if the author's opinion was notable/representative. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine with attribution in this instance certainly I will not claim that there was any consensus beyond this article. All of the final comments agreed with limited usage with attribution, and these were not refuted. If you want a consensus for removal, it will have to go again to RSN again, as there certainly is no consensus to remove the source. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

All the RSN discussion did was establish (as I had been arguing) that Heat Street was not a reliable source. We do not need to go back there to cut down on citing random internet opinion haver Ian Miles Cheong. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between an WP:RSOPINION source and an unreliable source. Clearly we will have to agree to disagree on the outcome of that RSN post, as it was never officially closed we are essentially arguing about which points in the discussion we think are most convincing, which isn't going to get us anywhere as we clearly have different views on this subject. I will compromise by agreeing to leave most of the current edit in place which reduces usage of the source (so as to avoid an edit war), but request that the bit "He writes that "although there are undoubtedly some trolls that use the term, the online movement is fundamentally a politically incorrect reaction to the suppression of free speech." be re-added as this establishes important context of a centre-right viewpoint on the issue, and it is our job to report on all points of view not just the ones we like. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with this approach. It is absolutely NOT our job to report all points of view, it is our job to report points of view in proportion to due weight. Due weight is determined by reliable sources. Who gets to decide that Cheong is the main example of a centre-right viewpoint? Is he speaking for all centre-right commentators? Is he truly centre-right, or is he alt-right, as the Daily Beast seems to think? If the latter, do we need to find another centre-right commentator to fill in the "gap"? This demonstrates the folly of trying to categorize sources by ideology, and this is basically why I removed it. Being a verifiable opinion isn't enough, being a particular ideology isn't enough either, and we shouldn't leave it up to Wikipedia editors to determine which views belong and which don't. If this viewpoint is important, it should be supported by a reliable outside source or independently notable proponent. Grayfell (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Except there is not a consensus that the source is 'unreliable' just that it should be treated as an opinion source (which is fine). Whether centre-right or alt-right is kind of irrelevant (the source he is writing for is definitely right leaning), either way it is definitely a demographic-opinion that is underrepresented in our article on the topic. This is a topic connected to the alt-right and 4-chan, is it correct that we should only use left wing and centrist sources to describe it? Hell no. That would be a direct violation of WP:WEIGHT. When I said "all points of view" I kinda misspoke, because what I meant was "all significant points of view per WP:WEIGHT". If that makes more sense. Cheong's interpretation here is one that is also held by a huge group of proponents of the movement, and it is an essential anchor to the left wing sources that we are also using, to make sure that we present an unbiased article.

Make no mistake: both 'sides' of this are 'correct'. Kekistan was created as a movement to decry excess political correctness and is used as such by many, but it was also co-opted by many who are overtly racist/anti-semitic/white nationalists. Is it defined by the former? or the later? The mainstream media focuses on the later, Cheong focuses on the former. It doesn't have to be one thing, and because of the nature of the internet, it realistically can't ever be. Similar to the Pepe the frog meme itself, it started out as a meme unrelated to white supremacy/alt-right, but then 4-chan decided "lets make pepe racist", and it happened [6]. The story of kekistan is largely the same.

If we get a better source from that viewpoint-group, there was consensus that we should use that instead, but I'm not seeing that yet. In the meantime, Cheong's viewpoint is essential to round out the coverage on this topic. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you back up your assertion that Cheong's viewpoint is held by a 'huge group of proponents of the movement'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

So it turns out there are sources about this source. Heat Street issued a retraction to Cheong's article and then later deleted the retraction, and then, well, deleted the entire site. I don't think that Heat Street was quite as bad as The Daily Mail or Breitbart (or, I dunno, Natural News if we want a less political examples) but they weren't great, especially in this case. The article from The Outline make the claim that they were a complete mess both in general and specifically regarding how they handled Pepe. Since Heat Street is now defunct, it's hard to argue with this. I would also say that Cheong's willingness to push unsupported conspiracy theories, as linked above, and the controversial nature of his opinions within the site itself, indicates that he is individually unreliable in this context. His opinion needs to be very carefully assessed and interpreted by reliable, outside sources. As an additional red flag, pushing silly historical revisionism suggests we are not dealing with an expert in politics.

Even when I would use a Heat Street source for a factual detail, which is now even less likely after reading the above, I still would need a non-ideological reason to include an opinion. Opinions need more care than news or academic summaries, not less. We need to attribute them, but also, we need to have an obvious reason why this opinion, among all the 7.6 billion opinions currently out there, is being highlighted as encyclopedically significant. Ideology isn't the way to decide this. At all. It's a trap that only promotes false balance at best, and WP:FRINGE at worst.

If the reliable sources we have talking about something are "left-wing wing and centrist", than yes, we should feel free to use those sources, without hesitation. That's the entire problem with false balance. It forces us to give prominence to less reliable sources for misguided reasons, and it discredits reliable sources solely because they are perceived by someone to have an ideology. It isn't up to us to decide which sources pass the ideology test, only the reliability one. Grayfell (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If you don't see an issue with using only sources from a single ideological perspective on an article that is literally all about ideological perspective, I'm not going to be able to point the problem out to you. The retraction you speak of was about a different article to the one we are talking about here (one about hillary clinton and pepe the frog, not the one about kekistan). The article "about this source" that you mention above is nothing more than a run of the mill back and forth hit piece that commonly go back and forth from the left-media to the right-media and back again. Really I really am too busy in my personal life to spend time arguing with you guys about this any more. So consider yourselves successful; I have been worn down by attrition and will be unwatchlisting both this and the Carl Benjamin article. Do what you wish. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yay! PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, It is exactly this kind of attitude that ruins dialogue or discussion on controversial articles on Wikipedia. The goal should be to improve the article, not to 'win'. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, if you are looking for a good source on Kekistan to replace some of the Heat Street stuff, check out the video that Vice news posted about it here. The video has additional info that isn't covered in the text such as 'shadilay' and some other stuff that was recently removed because of lack of sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The Kek section does not belong in this article

No, far too little relating to LOL to even be considered an appropriate split.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposed split of 'kek' and merge into LOL

The word "Kek" itself has very little to do with a cartoon frog, and certainly does not entitle an entire section in this article. I suggest moving the Kek section to LOL, since it is a variation on LOL, and/or Alt-right.SpanishSnake (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose merging to LOL- The term kek used on WOW is related to LOL, but beyond that, the meme has very little in common with LOL and a lot more in common with Pepe the Frog. If a split is advised, it would be much better to split into a standalone article on Kek rather than shoehorning it into anything else. There are plenty of references and content for a standalone article, but I am not yet convinced that a split is advisable. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2018

This edit request to Pepe the Frog has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Just a few things that are not correct. Swooshyy (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"Other uses" section reads as a Miscellaneous/Trivia

The "Other uses" sections reads like a miscellaneous section. If its contents cannot be integrated to the main section, I suggest to remove it. See WP:TRIVIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrincodi (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. If anyone disagrees, they're welcome to revert and say why here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Kekistan is against the Alt-Right

Self-described 'Kekistanis' are mostly classical-liberal and populist conservative free-speech advocates opposed to identity politics, many of whom are followers of a YouTuber named Carl Benjamin, already referenced in the article. While it does appear like white identitarians were the first to use Pepe as a political symbol, this symbol was largely re-appropriated by people like Benjamin, known for his strong criticism of the alt-right. Although alt-right 'supporters' of Kekistan exist, they are a small minority of people who identify under this label. The official Republic of Kekistan Wiki even claims that white nationalists stand "opposed to the Free Kekistan movement" ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleDiana (talk • contribs) 05:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The "official Republic of Kekistan Wiki"? The one that illustrates its "Pepe" article with a picture of Pepe in SS-Totenkopfverbände uniform holding a judenstern, and Pepe wearing an Ustaše uniform outside the Auschwitz of the Balkans..? Try again. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

'Kekistan' is a parody of some of the events that occurred throughout history, and this includes some elements of World War II. This does not mean that people who perpetuate the 'Kekistan' meme are actual neo-Nazis or alt-right supporters. Go watch some of Carl Benjamin's videos and you'll see that he's against white nationalism. PurpleDiana (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure about why I am expected to consider some bloke who lives in a council flat in Swindon as the fount of all knowledge regarding the beliefs and attitudes of the Alt-Right. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You're not. He's one of the figures who helped to develop and spread the 'Kekistan' meme and has stated in numerous videos that he does not support the ideology of the Alt-Right. The "official wiki" of Kekistan also claims that they're on opposing sides. There is no evidence to support the contrary outside of like one or two photographs of the 'Kekistan flag' at the Charlottesville protests, and even then it's unclear whether the flag was being flown by an actual white nationalist. I don't know what else there is for me to say. PurpleDiana (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

They're not nazis, they're just history fans who dress themselves up as nazis and identify with nazis for, uh... reasons? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

They. Don't. Identify. With. Nazis. With the exception of invoking Nazism from time to time in order to bait gullible social justice warriors, they are as opposed to their ideology as you and I. Unless someone provides me with evidence showing the contrary (memes and image macros don't count), I'm going to emphasize in the article that 'Kekistan' is not a white nationalist construct. PurpleDiana (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If you do, you will be reverted for injecting original research into the article. Identifying with Nazis is still identifying with Nazis, even if it's under the childish pretense of "satire". They are not mocking Nazis, they are mocking the people who are opposed to Nazis. Reliable sources, if they bother talking about this at all, link this meme and its Nazi-adjacent imagery closely with the alt-right. That's all that matters here. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

References

^ Alt-Right -- Republic of Kekistan Wiki http://kekistan.wikia.com/wiki/Alt-Right

A part of the people, who are using "Kekistan" are neo-nazis, but a huge part of them are just makeing fun of idenity politics and are liberals. There must be a video in which carl benjamin explaing this. --Fleritarus (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCDsXHUwUjY (1m 55s). He is talking also about the alt right --Fleritarus (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

There are others, maybe Bejamin himself, who said, that the alt-right is dumb for using Kekistan, because they make fun of themself. (because the alt-right is identidy politics for white people). I will search for the video. And sorry for my english. I dont really use it really often --Fleritarus (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin is, according to sources, just a guy with a semi-popular youtube account. He isn't a reliable source for statements of fact, nor is he an expert in politics or culture such that his opinion could be added as an opinion. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, but I don't think identity politics is nearly that simple. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Kekistan is NOT part of the alt-right. The entire thing is made mostly to mock the alt-right and identity politics. The reason the flag resembles a Nazi flag is because it is made to make fun of and mock them. The real issue it that the alt-right wasn't smart enough to realize this, and started using it. A member of the alt-right waving a Kekistani flag is the same as waving a banner calling themselves stupid. Kellogg Kraken (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source explaining where the flag came from, let's see it. Regardless, the symbols are being used by white supremacists now. It doesn't matter what the original intention was, because the Nazi wannabes have stolen it. You don't think that's fair? Okay, but Wikipedia tries to reflect what's happened, not necessarily what should've happened. It doesn't matter if some people use the flag "ironically" or not, there are still white supremacists using the flag at white supremacist rallies and events. If that makes them look stupid to a handful of people who know the "truth" of the flag designer's intentions, so what? They're still neo-Nazis, so that's not really the main problem, is it? If some people still try to use it for mockery, who are they really making fun of? It seems like it's making fun of people who are concerned with the rise in popularity of Nazi ideas. Since the meme is also used by real white supremacists, it's no longer quite so funny, is it? This is a white supremacist meme now according to reliable sources, and that's what Wikipedia uses. Sorry your meme got hijacked. Maybe next time don't use swastikas to make fun of people you don't like. Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor logic... Carl Benjamin created the Republic of Kekistan meme... Carl Benjamin is not a reliable source as to the connection between Republic of Kekistan and the art-right. Quoting Carl Benjamin about the meaning of his own creation is original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C202:AFFB:7DDB:8B66:8C89:6B8B (talk)

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. To clarify inaccuracies in your above comment: Carl Benjamin popularised the meme, not created it. He is a primary source, not original research. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Kekistan is a satire and mockery of identity politics. People who are at white supremacist rallies with the kekistan flag are doing so to mock them, as if they were saying "I'm with stupid". Kekistan is a centrist joke that is purely made to poke fun at racists and biggots on both sides of the political spectrum. It's sad when people who assume they understand and place meaning on something do so callously and without caring to do any actual research outside of the journalistic news sources who also don't get it and make wild assumptions and accusations. Kekistan, and KEK are purely jokes, first and formost, to make fun of identity politics and religious zealotry. Jerms02 (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The difficulty here is finding a reputable news source that wikipedia would allow you to use. Since most if not all reporting on Kekistan by the media has been completely wrong. They assume they understand a situation but refuse to ask questions or research any deeper. Also most news sources are very pro-identity politics, which automatically places the centrist anti-identity politics Kekistani's in thier eyes as just as bad as the actual racists and Nazis just because they don't agree with the media's form of identity politics either. Jerms02 (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page)..

Another request: As a suggestion, I think the article should be expanded with a more detailed account of the cultural appropiation the image of Pepe the Frog suffered, as a History subsection, regardless of whether said appropiation came with a clear intention of promoting hate speech or not. The following link gives an account of both the alt-right and self-called trolls claiming ownership of the appropiation for different reason (summary: the alt-right says it was a planned experiment to turn the image to their symbol and bring about a "cultural shift", while the troll says they were initially trying to "claim" Pepe back from mainstream speech by making him unappealing to "normal people" (or "normies") and the Alt-Right just used this viral behavior and the meme's popularity for its own agenda) : https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-pepe-the-frog-became-a-nazi-trump-supporter-and-alt-right-symbol

Good luck.

Featheredhat (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your first request:

Not done: The article already gives that information in the third paragraph of the Appropriation by the alt-right section.

Your second request:

Question: It is not clear to me, what you would like to have added. The article already mentions most of that. Please elaborate, what exactly it is you would like to see changed.

AntiCedros (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

References

You just showed a link to an article on this by people who are politically biased against Kekistanis just because they don't care to learn the truth. They just want to paint with a broad brush. Your link to that article is NOT A VALID REFERENCE because it is a pro identity politics news source Jerms02 (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

GO TO youtube. Search "what is KEKISTAN?" That would give you a closer idea about what Kekstan actually is. Your references are not valid because they are media lies.Jerms02 (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Also the President of Kekistan is a black man on you tube called "Big Man Tyrone". How are they racist? How can they be alt-right and not racist? Alt-right is a white supremacist movement. Kekistan is not a white supremacist movement. Kekistan is a free speech/meme movement, and an anti-identity politics movement.Jerms02 (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)