Jump to content

Talk:Pepe the Frog/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

add http://4chan.org/b or http://4chan.org/r9k in external links mark them as nsfw R3333e3!!1! (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done – We don't provide external links to discussion forums. – Þjarkur (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019

Change

===Kekistan===

Flag of "Kekistan"[1] and a Nazi battle flag.

to

===Kekistan===

Flag of "Kekistan"[1] and a German battle flag.

Reason: The direct comparison between the Kekistan flag and the Nazi battle flag suggests that the common design element (the off-center cross) had been taken from the Nazi battle flag. However, this design element had already been established in the 19th century and therefore is not specific to the Third Reich. This is deceptive. At the very least, it should be made clear in the article that this design element is not specific to the Nazi battle flag. 2001:16B8:4032:FC00:D07D:FB9F:B217:5601 (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't seem very reasonable to me. There is not just the single design element of the off-center cross; every design element is identical between them. The circle around the central seal is the exact same size, for example; the same goes for the location and size of the upper-left symbol, and for the solid background color.
To reiterate: It is not a question of a single similar design element. The point is that the flags are identical except for swapped colors and swapped logos. Your proposed edit would only serve to obfuscate; the flag in your proposal is thematically similar, but unlike the Nazi battle flag, is not essentially identical.
More to the point, this is Wikipedia, and the connection between the two is straight from the source, the SPLC. Other credible sources portray the relationship the same way. If you do not have a similarly well-respected source making verifiable claims that run counter to the narrative in the current article, then I don't see why your proposed edit is a good idea. GreatBigDot (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
While the direct comparison of the flags does seem fair, it should be noted that the SPLC is not a reliable source and has often had its reputation credibly disputed despite its widespread use in media and should therefore be used cautiously. The source has been excluded from some pages due to its questionable reliability and often the article defers to the ADL in these cases instead, for instance on the OK Gesture wiki page [2] - KekistaniRightsActivist (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, KekistaniRightsActivist. I'm not sure what you're basing your claims on, but the SPLC is a reliable source in this context. The SPLC's reputation is "often disputed", but so are almost all large outlets focused on controversial topics. If there is some reason to think disputing the reliability of this outlet on this particular talk page will improve the article, please explain how. Otherwise, this is conspicuously pointless. Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It very well may be so in this context, in which case I do not mean to cause any fuss. I was simply pointing out an example of disuse on the platform in the past for reliability concerns and issues in case they were relevant. Point stands that it would only be replaced by another source for this purpose seeing as the comparison is fair (and ["seemingly"] intentional). - KekistaniRightsActivist (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Neiwert, David. "What the Kek: Explaining the Alt-Right 'Deity' Behind Their 'Meme Magic'". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2019-02-15.
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_gesture#White_supremacy_prank

Clown World

Why no one made a Clown version of Pepe the Frog? known as the Clown World. 06/17/19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.94.216.151 (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Use on Twitch

It would be nice to see a section on this page about Pepe's use on Twitch -- emotes like FeelsBadMan, POGGERS and PepeHands are very popular on the site. 2601:647:4D03:3CA7:1C8A:FCB8:869F:E0FE (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The lack of even a mention of this character's prominent innocent usage on Twitch versus the absurdly long section on its usage by an extreme minority of far-right activists, together with edit protection; shows this page is so very clearly written with an agenda. 2001:4665:FE9:0:C190:D3B9:CCBA:6FE (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of references in reliable sources to this character are about its use by the alt right. Ergo, that's the majority of this article. O3000 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong protests

Pepe is being used by Hong Kong protesters as symbol, this seems relevant. https://reclaimthenet.org/pepe-the-frog-hong-kong-protests/ https://vdare.com/posts/hong-kong-protests-adopt-racist-pepe-the-frog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B017:BF3C:A95B:E256:8801:D8A3 (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's a local source: https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/article/3023060/how-pepe-frog-became-face-hong-kong-protests-despite-cartoon Image2012 (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Done! --Mayimbú (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
New York Time's source as well. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/world/asia/hong-kong-protest-pepe-frog.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.166 (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2019

History In 2016, a local company was authorized to continue developing Pepe and the brand within China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. 172.91.197.119 (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise request. Additionally, please provide reliable sources for any claims. (I've removed a link to the website as just spam). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

29 September 2019

User blocked as sockpuppet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


You have green name magic on Wikipedia so I cannot talk on your wiki user account. You asked me on my user account (which has the talk feature) for my sources, and my sources are the many Facebook communities I am in, but I read that Facebook should not be used as a source. If you are on Facebook just type in Vulkekin or Kekistani Starovery and you will see groups and pages with these names. If you tell me how to cite Facebook groups I will certainly do so in my edits. I am not vandalizing. I am adding what I consider directly relevant information. I do not know how to tag you on my page so I am writing you here.

Doug Weller wrote 2 comments on my page:

September 2019

Ambox warning pn.svg Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Pepe the Frog. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a hoax or vandalism, hopefully neither, but I'd like your source(s) 

“At Peper the Frog you added this: "+ Some members of the Starseed Otherkin community have an identity narrative in which the pure Kekistanian people, known as the Vulkekin are actually a non-terrestrial people from the planet Kekhet. A Vulkek is one who is full of Kek. The Vulkekin community is active on social media sites and has taken the lead in promoting the traditional religious practices of the children of Kek, such as within the Kekistani Starovery." Doug Weller talk 12:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)” DErnestWachter (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, Doug Weller, you or someone deleted my Urban dictionary definition, which I sourced, amd which is MOST relevant to this wiki page. I used the number 3 definition! Look it up. Why can’t the number 3 definition if Kekistan on urban dictionary be used on Wikipedia? That is the mist accurate definition in my view except for the word “invented”. But I did not edit the definition to suit my preferences. I cited it as is. DErnestWachter (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Forgive typos. Being accused of being a vandal when I am a Vulkek in the Kekistani Starovery by a green Siki admin that I cannot directly talk to after being threatened with being thrown off of Wikipedia when I am, in my view, adding culturally relevant information, makes me mistype. Apologies. You should be able to figure out my comment despite the typos. Look on Urban Dictionary for the number 3 definition of Kekistan and add it please to this page. And go on Facebook and look up Kekistani Starovery and Vulkekin to confirm what I attempted to add about those communities. I thought that “trans” persons would be welcome to add their “tran” narratives on Wikipedia. Why is Wiki discriminating against Vulkekin? Just tell me with compassionate wording how to get our narrative on Wikipedia properly in a manner admin approves of and I will gladly do it. I am not a wiki wizard. My Wiki skill level is low. DErnestWachter (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I meant wiki admin. Not siki admin. Another typo, albeit a funny one. I just woke up. DErnestWachter (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary is crowd-sourced, and therefore not a reliable source. O3000 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2019

This was requested on Sept 11 and rejected because I did not give you enough information. In the History section, I would like to have the following sentence added. 'In 2016, a local company was authorized to continue developing Pepe and the brand within China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.' We worked with Matt to try and expand the brand and give Pepe back his good image as things were heading with the right movement in NA. It was online work, and in China, so the best link I can give you is our website showing Pepe as part of our IPs. <ref>http://huyu.baozou.com/en/star_kt/ref>

172.91.197.119 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 172.91.197.119 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sceptre (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2019

Section Kek, Paragraph 1, Last sentence. Request deletion of the line, "Kek references are closely associated with Trump and the alt-right." This is unsubstantiated by the "citations" listed for the line or lines similar to it. Also, it does technically imply all references of the term are associated this way, when in reality, it is a minority of references in common use cases. Dinkleburglar (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Additionally, just for fun, a cursory glance at the references did indicate to me that there was indeed a correlation with the alt-right co-opting the word "kek" and using it with the meme. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Kek needs context

The first reference to Kek is made without context. Please add background. In general, the article leaves the reader with more questions about this entry than questions answered.GenacGenac (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary definition of Kekistan: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Kekistan 3 Kekistan Kekistan is an invented ethnicity with a storied yet obviously entirely invented history, religion and culture. It mocks how the far-right cling to their race and cultural purity narrative and how the far-left clings to their racial victimhood narrative with an parody of extreme patriotism and an oppression narrative about how the Normiestan and the Cuckistan nations oppressed the Kekistani people. DErnestWachter (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary is still crowd-sourced, and therefore still not a reliable source. O3000 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that nobody in “reliable sources” is giving the identity narratives accurately for people in the Kek community imho. I understand that Wiki has its own standards of reliable sources snd that is why i did not put up a link to Facebook but just said “social media” as my source. I did nit know Urbandictionary was not considered reliable. I would use the definition above from there but remove the word “invented”. Do trans-gender people invent their identity narratives? Well some fundamentalists would claim so but it is not PC to say that. When nobody listens to your community’s own identity narrative then are we to just not attempt to tell it DErnestWachter (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Admin is always right in their groups. That is what i always say on facebook. It seems the talk spaces is where the real good information is to be found on wiki entries. So i will go add information there when it is from a social media source. And i have noted that urban dictionary is not welcome on the main wiki entries. DErnestWachter (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

{{re|DErnestWachter|| Admins have no control over content. And Admins are definitely not always right - except for me of course. :-) You can find reliable sources discussing transgender identity narratives - take a look at the notes and references for that article. I take your word for it that what you wrote was neither vandalism nor a hoax, although the bit about non-terrestrial certainly looks like one or the other. But it does seem to be original research by you, which we do not allow. Talk pages are also not places to add your own opinion, they are for discussing ways to improve the article. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Origin of kek as euphemism of lol

It should be noted that kek originated as the "translation" of the word lol when said by a character speaking Orcish heard by a character who does not speak Orcish in the video game World of Warcraft. Orcish is not a true language and lol is just one of many 3 letter words that gets translated to kek; the system is in place to scramble chat messages and make communication between two opposing factions impossible not to be an actual language. Nevertheless "lol" was a very common exclamation when making fun of your enemy, and so "kek" became known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.229.188 (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Appropriated by the alt-right?

Despite The Guardian states that Pepe The Frog was "appropriated," this claim is not accurate and it's only mentioned by that news media. The text claiming making reference to the supposed appropriation must be removed, or at least made explicitly clear that this statement belongs to The Guardian. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • “Pepe the Frog, a cartoon character appropriated by the "alt-right" NPR
  • “New #SavePepe drive will include new memes for once-obscure cartoon appropriated by alt-right, Trump supporters.” Times of Israel
  • “His cartoon character started life as an innocent figure, but was later appropriated as an unofficial mascot of the alt-right.”CNN
  • “Pepe the Frog, a cartoon amphibian adopted as a far-right mascot during the 2016 presidential campaign, has successfully sued in recent years to keep his creation from appearing on white nationalist websites, alt-right Reddit forums and the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer.”NYTimes
  • “Pepe the Frog is a humanoid frog cartoon character who became a popular internet meme in the early 2000s, and was notoriously appropriated by white supremacists during the 2016 US presidential election.” Dictionary.com O3000 (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Shouldn't be these sources also included in the lead? Ajñavidya (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
No, because there is an entire section in the article with numerous sources. Four supporting citations (8-11) in the lead are enough. See MOS:LEADCITE. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This is an exceptionally inarticulate and inaccurate excuse for a rebuttal. 30 ignorant people circle jerking each other on the flatness of the earth does not constitute a well cited article. None of the sources provided are actually credible experts, or their credentials are contestable at best. More precisely, you'll find that the people who make these claims to explain the motivations, perceptions, and intentions of 4Chan are distinctly in the out group of 4Chan.
Even my making that point is reliant on its own self appearance rather than an expert opinion, because 4Chan is an amorphous and chaotic cesspool of raw human emotion and imagination, existing for the sole purpose of its own amusement and gratifcation of arbitrary whimsy.
Perhaps, a mildly more credible source on the matter, may actually be, I don't know, the advertised intention and behaviors of 4Chan as they have portrayed them. Even if you wish to continue to entertain the notion that its all one big decentralized brilliantly managed scheme to get a bunch of strangers to expertly coordinate in producing a well motivated and richly virulent social phenomenon the likes of which professional advertisers and social psychologists can not manage, and is speculated to be possible through only through the collective meta cognition of organically evolved hive minds like what 4Chan essentially is. Furthermore, that this scheme of brilliance has been going since the inception of the internet, run in a seemless and mysterious manner, with perpetual disinformation concealing the true nature of the secretive cabal running it all, without anyone giving the game away for 30 years in an OPSEC record to make the KGB and CIA blush.
Even if you think the Guardian, in its infinite wisdom of social psychology and absolute freedom from political and ideological bias is qualified for us to take them at their word deserves mention, putting the theory forward. Its at the very least intellectually dishonest to not at least disclose that there are two side, what the guardian says is an accusation, that there is abundant evidence to deny this accusation, to include 4Chan actively hyperbolizing and playing into the narrative with gross indulgence in satirical imagery as their literal poster child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeranth (talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
None of the sources provided are actually credible experts. Mainstream news organizations such as The New York Times and The Guardian are normally considered reliable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability § What counts as a reliable source. The Anti-Defamation League also describes the connection with the alt-right.
4Chan is an amorphous and chaotic cesspool of raw human emotion and imagination, existing for the sole purpose of its own amusement and gratifcation of arbitrary whimsy. Exactly the reason we don't consider 4Chan a reliable source for anything.
Its at the very least intellectually dishonest to not at least disclose that there are two side[s] – Giving equal weight to both "sides" would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

" some left-leaning protesters have criticized its adoption"

Is sourced to [1] - but where does that source back the text? Doug Weller talk 09:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Biased article as always

Pepe was used by protesters in the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests as a symbol of "liberty and resistance"?? It was symbol of terrorism and murders. The "neutrality" of Wikipedia is so real as the "european continent". Sorberino (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

EDIT: I tried for a long time to find a more reliable source, but ultimately couldn't find one. Why does the previous text get to stay without a source? Could I put my source as [original research?]— Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberdemonE2M8 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

EDIT 2: A source I found: https://theconversation.com/how-an-ancient-egyptian-god-spurred-the-rise-of-trump-72598

Please could I get an answer to my previous question? I would like to know in future when requesting edits and editing, when you need a source and when you don't. I do not see the difference between what was there (without a source) and what I wrote (with an unreliable source).— Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberdemonE2M8 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

In the "Kek" section, change

"Kek is associated with the occurrence of repeating digits, known as "dubs",[original research?] on 4chan"

to

"As 4chan is an anonymous image board, all posts are assigned a post number for reference. These post numbers are almost random due to unpredictable board traffic. Posts ending with double digits (dubs), triple digits (trips) all the way up to eight repeating digits are known as GETS. A post with a GET is said to be the voice of Kek, and is considered prophetic in nature."

Source: https://pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com/ Search the page for the word "dubs"

I've used 4chan for non-political discussion, so am familiar with the post number system and concept of GETS. CyberdemonE2M8 (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The link above is not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@CyberdemonE2M8: when adding new comments, please do so at the bottom of a section. Also, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages. Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 22:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
information Note: I'm closing this requet as  Not done. The mess of modified comments and replies inserted willy-nilly make this impossible to follow. If you want to make another request, please do so in an organized fashion, and if it gets rejected and you want to reply, do so as stated above rather than going back to edit comments after they're responded to (see Help:Talk for more info). I'll note though, that trying to source stuff to blogs isn't going to fly; see WP:SPS. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Weird that Matt Furie redirects to Pepe the Frog?

Seems strange that instead of a stub article for the creator of Pepe the Frog, his Wikipedia page redirects to his creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.110.160 (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Not weird, just wrong. The Pepe page shows that there has been enough published about Furie. His page should be about him, not Pepe. I would like to know about him! Find non-Pepe stuff too!71.230.16.111 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The only reason that Furie redirects to Pepe is that no on has yet written an article about Furie. If you have access to published articles about Furie, and feel able to contribute to an article about the man, then here is your chance to do so. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2020

Please change the omission of "Pepe the frog is a common emoji seen during twitch streams used to express surprise, sadness, or excitement" to include "Pepe the frog is a common emoji seen during twitch streams used to express surprise, sadness, or excitement" in the As a Meme section. Source: https://www.polygon.com/2018/5/14/17335670/twitch-emotes-meaning-list-kappa-monkas-omegalul-pepe-trihard Edit: I believe that this is not a trivial mention because Twitch is a huge outlet for the younger demographic similar to Youtube, and Pepe represents how they express themselves in a new way. The young audience use pepe to communicate with twich streamers, who they look up to, so leaving this information out means leaving a big part of young culture. The young will grow to control society when we are older after all, and they are influenced by this emoji, Pepe, as much as any other part of culture. I thought that this source that I provided explains this but obviously no one has read it yet.Unknowut (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that supports this addition. Even then, it sounds like a rather trivial mention. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
(Noting that a source has been added to the original request) – Thjarkur (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Glad the article includes Matt Furrie's victory against Eric Hauser (wikipedia article doesn't mention his name for some reason)(no sign of Eric's book at Post Hill Press's website). So The Forward has an article saying Matt Furrie and associated lawyers had served "cease and desist orders to a number of far-right sites and personalities, including Richard Spencer, Baked Alaska, Mike Cernovich and the Reddit channel the_Donald, ...". They won against Baked Alaska (see Baked Alaska (activist)). But what happened with other battles?? (ie. can this Pepe article include the results of those battles). --EarthFurst (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Dubious claim about the Hong Kong protests

"Hong Kongers were generally unaware that Pepe the Frog had been appropriated by the alt-right and white supremacists in the United States." Excuse me? To assume that the Hong Kong protesters didn't know anything about Pepe and its history and just used him because he was a popular character or something is nearly an insult. Even the article itself later contradicts itself (“It has nothing to do with the far-right ideology in the [States]. It just looks funny and captures the hearts of so many youngsters. It is a symbol of youth participation in this movement.”) on the assumption that they didn't know anything about Pepe as a hate symbol, now they claim that they knew about his history, but didn't care as this was a symbol they could interprete however they wanted to. A second source is needed (the two sources seem to link to the same article) or this is not a verifiable claim. XXShrekPurpleXX (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the problem here. We can only go by what reliable sources say. The body of the article includes several sources on this. For example, the New York Time source also mentions this: The question confuses many protesters, many of whom had no idea about the symbol’s racist connotations elsewhere in the world. They just like him. Hong Kong's protest movement's attitude about a meme that started in the US in a different context is... nebulous, to put it mildly. Expecting precision will lead to frustration. Hong Kong protesters either don't know or don't care or somewhere in between, but I don't see this as insulting. From the body of the article, neither does Matt Furie, the character's creator. Grayfell (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it disingenuous to make assumptions about what an individual or group of individuals (such as the protestors in Hong Kong) knew or didn't know about specific history. Pepe the frog was an old and well known internet meme long before those associated with the alt-right began using it. (For an additional example, in addition to citations on the page, see https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-pepe-the-frog-hate-symbol-20161011-snap-htmlstory.html ) Unfortunately I cannot make corrections to this page due to being a newer contributor, but this page needs some serious work, and I will certainly get back to it once I've gotten to the point I am able and have verifiable sources to back up the meme's actual history.DesertEagle_PWN (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2020 (ET)
The problem is that the usage of the image as a white supremacist symbol has no relevance to the use in the Hong Kong protests. The sentence sticks out as an oddity that doesn't really belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.213.11 (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and the article directly explains that these two usages are different. It explains this because reliable sources explain this. If we didn't explain this, it could cause serious confusion, and encyclopedia articles should prevent confusion when we can. Grayfell (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it

The whole thing is a joke, yet you claim it is an alt-right symbol of white supremacy. It simply isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.202.176 (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Might be worth watching The PewDiePipeline: how edgy humor leads to violence from 12:10 before writing it off as "just a joke". It simply isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:8E14:8F01:C9A3:BEB1:FA8A:C5DC (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Dubious claim about the Hong Kong protests

"Hong Kongers were generally unaware that Pepe the Frog had been appropriated by the alt-right and white supremacists in the United States." Excuse me? To assume that the Hong Kong protesters didn't know anything about Pepe and its history and just used him because he was a popular character or something is nearly an insult. Even the article itself later contradicts itself (“It has nothing to do with the far-right ideology in the [States]. It just looks funny and captures the hearts of so many youngsters. It is a symbol of youth participation in this movement.”) on the assumption that they didn't know anything about Pepe as a hate symbol, now they claim that they knew about his history, but didn't care as this was a symbol they could interprete however they wanted to. A second source is needed (the two sources seem to link to the same article) or this is not a verifiable claim. XXShrekPurpleXX (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the problem here. We can only go by what reliable sources say. The body of the article includes several sources on this. For example, the New York Time source also mentions this: The question confuses many protesters, many of whom had no idea about the symbol’s racist connotations elsewhere in the world. They just like him. Hong Kong's protest movement's attitude about a meme that started in the US in a different context is... nebulous, to put it mildly. Expecting precision will lead to frustration. Hong Kong protesters either don't know or don't care or somewhere in between, but I don't see this as insulting. From the body of the article, neither does Matt Furie, the character's creator. Grayfell (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it disingenuous to make assumptions about what an individual or group of individuals (such as the protestors in Hong Kong) knew or didn't know about specific history. Pepe the frog was an old and well known internet meme long before those associated with the alt-right began using it. (For an additional example, in addition to citations on the page, see https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-pepe-the-frog-hate-symbol-20161011-snap-htmlstory.html ) Unfortunately I cannot make corrections to this page due to being a newer contributor, but this page needs some serious work, and I will certainly get back to it once I've gotten to the point I am able and have verifiable sources to back up the meme's actual history. DesertEagle_PWN (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2020 (ET)

The problem is that the usage of the image as a white supremacist symbol has no relevance to the use in the Hong Kong protests. The sentence sticks out as an oddity that doesn't really belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.213.11 (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and the article directly explains that these two usages are different. It explains this because reliable sources explain this. If we didn't explain this, it could cause serious confusion, and encyclopedia articles should prevent confusion when we can. Grayfell (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it

The whole thing is a joke, yet you claim it is an alt-right symbol of white supremacy. It simply isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.202.176 (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Might be worth watching The PewDiePipeline: how edgy humor leads to violence from 12:10 before writing it off as "just a joke". It simply isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:8E14:8F01:C9A3:BEB1:FA8A:C5DC (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

"Reeee" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Reeee. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 2#Reeee until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris talk! 20:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What is that image?

@Citobun: Just out of curiosity, that is the Vegan symbol and there are plentiful citations that can prove that but if its not the Vegan symbol what is it? A circle (V) is a common symbol for Veganism. Des Vallee (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Some Hong Kong protesters have embraced the symbology of the V for Vendetta film, including the Guy Fawkes mask and the graffiti pictured in that photograph. Citobun (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The Vegan symbol is more of a V mostly or principally circumscribed (i.e. this , or this) as you might find on food packaging or on a restaurant menu; the V in the image, as mentioned by Citobun is iconography from V for Vendetta where the V expands beyond a retaining circle, refusing to be circumscribed -- a symbol of liberation from government, and closely resembling an inverted Anarchy A.DesertEagle PWN (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2021

in the reference section we should include this guy, I recently created a wiki page for him, because the world needs to know what he is upto

https://righknight.medium.com/alt-right-fascist-hate-symbol-what-is-pepe-7f381e94f11e?source=user_profile---------8---------------------------- MCbotski (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2021 (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. Medium is generally not a reliable source, and you didn't provide anything you wanted to source to the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

In-universe gender

There's no source given for the information that Pepe the Frog is a male character. I'd argue that if it's not possible to retrieve an adequate source the gender of this far-right mascot should be given as "non-binary". --Jazzman (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jazzman That makes no sense. Since when does ambiguous gender = "non-binary"? Oktayey (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The origin is a comic series called Boy's Club. The obvious inference from that is that Pepe is male. Further, Furie refers to Pepe as "he" and "him" in this Time piece. As it stands, current evidence strongly points to Pepe being a male character canonically. Although, Furie has stated that Pepe is whatever you may make of him. Though that was about politics more than gender. Ambiguous gender is not the same thing as non-binary, by the way. Chillabit (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021

From browsing meme and the general internet culture, I discovered that pepe had another meaning. I got to know it with the Nazi thing, which seemed to be an inoffensive trigger by weebish teenage trolls. As time went on, I can safely state through Bayesian analysis of the subject matter that :

1) Pepe the frog is used as an identity by a whole generation of internet dwellers 2) These imagery are most of the time depicting sadness, depression, suicidal thoughts and general disbelief in life. 3) It is linked most of the time with difficult life experiences, humiliation, rememberance of better, innocent times. 4) It represents the struggle of a generation of lonely suicidal gamer/internet men 5) This identity of diseblief and general sadness is expressed as cynicism in the more evolved "Nazi" memes 6) These Nazi memes are far from being the core of that meme, and only exist as a sub-branch. Same for the pepe clown meme. 7) Kekistan is the most underground expression of this meme, and therefore should remain anecdotal. 8) The whole Nazi/clown thing is an expression of the core meme, as antagonism from far-left ideas of the current "Identity Politics" crisis. 9) The core meme is about young men lost in a decadent society, without role figures and keen emotional intuition. Djalesharesometruth (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

These sound like opinions, and moreover you have not provided any sources. Also look into what a Bayesian analysis is before saying you have conducted one. Hugomikhailov (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - the original DjaleShareSomeTruth comment is opinion, but demonstrates the kind of connections appropriate to Meme analysis.
Also agreed - what is needed is a 3rd party reference that expresses these views. Gary Lachman's Dark Star Rising, and predecessor Politics and the Occult are useful places to look for political ties and history, although they are on the occult side of meme/egregore. LarryLACa (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Pepe vs Kermit

The graphic resemblance between Pepe (2005) and Kermit (Sesame Street 1969) is unavoidable, yet there is no mention of the similarity here. Maybe we need a background section on similar cartoon characters. LarryLACa (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously there are a lot of differences between a text frog cartoon and a live frog puppet, but the absence of background context is a limitation. Particularly in the context that Pepe sprang into life in 2005 and soon carried over into several political streams, with their own historical motivations and context, Pepe's context needs to be documented. LarryLACa (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Also: the broader usage of Pepe in the political sense and as a highly frequent internet meme, elevates Pepe from internet meme to a cultural meme, as described in the Meme article. The connection between internet meme and meme should be highlighted. LarryLACa (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Frenly Frens

The term “Fren” currently redirects here, but the article doesn’t actually describe that particular subculture (nor the altered variant of Pepe that “frens” use as a mascot). The omission is even more glaring because the “Groyper” variant and its associated subculture _are_ mentioned on the page. Why the one and not the other?

FWIW, the suspect in the attack on Paul Pelosi is apparently involved with them, since he had a blog called “Frenly Frens”. So if you’re looking for sources to describe the “fren” phenomenon, that’d be one place to start looking. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:121B (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Due to its widespread use in twitch emotes I think more should be covered around this topic

Relevant sources:

- nathanielcwm (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


Citation: Pepe used in Hongkong

Here is a possible source, a paper researching the use of Pepe as a mascot during the Hongkong demonstration https://jdsr.se/ojs/index.php/jdsr/article/view/131 Maybe someone wants to work that in or at least give a citation in the first paragraph. Here are some alternate sources: https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/pepe-the-frog-is-love-and-peace-his-second-life-in-hong-kong https://www.dpublication.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/04-807.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.203.132.75 (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pepe_the_Frog/Archive_3&oldid=1219932267"