Talk:4chan/Archive 15
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 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)
- Need it be independent? The status page would seem to be authoritative: [1]. --69.12.157.118 (talk) 22:17, 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
"Child pornography is referred to as CP on 4chan. [citation needed]" 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)
**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)
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)
(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 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)
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)
Here is the direct link: http://img.4chan.org/b/res/152123744.html74.233.42.18 (talk) 17:47, 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)
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)
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)
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 ContinuedTo 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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://wiki.riteme.site/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)
- (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)
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)
- 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)
- 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?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I listed WP guidelines. Proves you don't read half the discussion here. Gpia7r (talk) 20:15, 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 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)
- 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)
- Yet you fail to see why that is false. Gpia7r (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I already have. 68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- "I'm not wrong - Pedobear is a meme on 4chan." - Cite this. Gpia7r (talk) 19:25, 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
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'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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
/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)