Talk:4chan

4chan is down

This is an unencyclopedic thing to say.

Yes, it is. There is a mention of it in the article, thus there is no need for discussion here unless and until the site comes back. Past discussion archived. Thanks. —Giggy 09:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The site is still down, and according to the status blog "Unfortunately, there is very little (read: nothing) that can be done about a 3-5Gbit DDoS attack.", even if the site will be up or not this may be worth mentioning since it may be the hardest attack against the site yet. / 81.227.251.20 (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the article currently mentions that. —Giggy 00:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I miss /b/, but I guess I'll just go to the archives. btw we should mention it's down just in case. - Crazyconan (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Moot wrote in the 4chan status blog he aims the site to be back online later tonight (EST). --KaragouniS :  Chat  21:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The site is currently back up and this is noted in the article. —Giggy 08:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I miss 4chan. Goodnight sweet prince. its too bad moot had to ddos himself and blame it on some random kid. people just didnt know how to respect what they had, now they have to live without such a quality community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.54.208 (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

cute. In the interview moot talked about looking for bigger advertisers and the like. He's planning to turn it into a (more) profitable enterprise, not planning to kill it. --81.158.147.41 (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiping the talk page of a wikipedia article is un-Wikipedialike

Yes, it is. There were many earnest comments regarding proposed content on this locked topic. It appears that whoever has taken it upon themselves to manage this page has lost sight of that, possibly because of miles of inane chatter, but no single person can be the judge of the relevancy of a whole discussion page! This is simply unacceptable by any standard.

Isn't it right here? Talk:4chan/Archive_11#4Chan_is_down_as_of_July_20th.2C_2008--mboverload@ 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see above comment; there is content in the article, there really isn't much left to say for now. —Giggy 00:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

you forgot the attack on ashley tisdale

users of 4chan attacked ashley tisdales website by spamming the forums with gore after she redid the rickroll song —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.24.242 (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is any different from daily occurrences on 4chan. We can't include everything that happens in the article. Personally, I think it's ridiculous to include the Google Trends fact.--Russoc4 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Google Hot Trends subversion?

I think this shouldnt even be mentioned in the article, it wasnt so important and things like that happen almost every day in 4chan. Jim88Argentina (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that this was reported in verifiable reliable sources. Of course, we don't need to report everything that happens, so if you have a reason why you think we shouldn't report this, I'm happy to hear it. —Giggy 05:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination?

Having done a fair bit of work cleaning this up, I'm thinking of nominating it for GA (and then move on to FA at some stage). Anyone have any comments on this? —Giggy 08:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I nominated it. —Giggy 10:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Heads up!

There is a piece that's going to be published in the August 3rd edition of New York Times Magazine [1] dealing with trolls, /b/, and Mitchell Henderson. Just putting it out there. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 01:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that article in the NY Times Magazine has already been integrated into this article, very well, I might add, by Giggy. Just check the history of the article. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 03:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Slowpoke ^{{talk • contribs}} 03:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if there's any information I didn't cover you're welcome to throw it in and we can discuss it. (And if you find any more sources, please suggest them!) —Giggy 06:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:4chan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Protonk comments

• Images: Some troubles:

• Image:4chan_front_page.png needs to be reviewed or further justified given its disputed fair use tag. I suggest obscuring the images in photoshop or taking a new screenshot.

• There's a new image up - thanks Kip Kip (see below). —Giggy 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:I move away from the mic to breathe in.jpg. I'm not sure this fair use rationale is justified, but it isn't a major problem. Reasonable minds could disagree on this subject.

• Hmm, yeah, I suppose I should ask for some more comments on this if I ever go for FA. —Giggy 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would left justify the Pflugerville threat image to distinguish it from chocolate rain.

• Hmm... then it would be directly under the section heading, which would look a bit awkward with the text shoved to the right (and there's something in MOS about that I think). —Giggy 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Probably right. I don't know to be sure. Either way, it looks connected to the chocolate rain pic as is. Not a big deal, really. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• The rest are fine.

• Sources: As is the case with most new media articles, we rely on what we can get. In this case, that is passing mentions by journalists, coverage on internet sites and very limited/biased coverage elsewhere. You might be interested in listening to this talk by Julian Dibbell on 4chan/Project Chanology/Anonymous. The sources that are used are footnoted in a consistent manner and probably (given the nature of the sourcing) presented in the most economical fashion. Sources (where I have checked) verify the text.

• Style: Some comments:

• The footnote in the lead regarding creation date can probably be moved down. IMO, lead footnotes should be there if a particular summary of a point below is contentious or it the lead contains a particular statement or wording of a statement (or a quote) that will not be repeated below. The guardian quote is a good example of a footnote in the lead that works well. Not so the creation date.

• The creation date isn't noted elsewhere in the article, so I moved the ref into the infobox so it's somewhat out of the way. —Giggy 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilinks follow WP:MOSLINK in the main. Remember to remove some wikilinks that were previously linked (Anonymous is linked multiple times) unless context dictates it.

• I could two links to Anonymous (group) (excluding see also section); one in a section related to said group, the other talking about a news report about said group (though I've removed the second in favour of {{main}}). There was also one link to Anonymity. Looking through for other stuff. —Giggy 08:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Format: the format is kind of a mess.

• The section on Media attention reads like a laundry list and doesn't move from point to point very smoothly. I would recommend breaking this section down into two major sections: controversies and memes (generally). The Hal turner, Jake Brahm, and Pflugerville High School sections (for example) do not really belong under the same heading as "Chocolate Rain". Sure, both resulted in media attention (otherwise we might not be writing about them), but that is not a very meaningful category to place them in to.
• the project chanology section should be moved out of the media attention section and into the 'history' section, as should the section on moot's identity.
• Remember, not everything has to follow the 'default' format. If the site is 5 years old, maybe "History" isn't the right name for it. Using that name sort of pushing contributors away from including content that might logically be placed there.

• treatment of the subject: Overall this is fairly good. The layout section does a good job summarizing important comments about /b/'s content and perception of that content. The voice of this article is fairly neutral and the scope of coverage is sufficient to contextualize the subject.

Overall this article is good. I am placing it on hold, pending some major layout changes and changes to the images to clarify fair use status. In order to pass this article ought to:

• Fix the image tags (this is a dealbreaker, image tags = no Ga status) Done. Thanks Kip Kip. Protonk (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• change the formatting such that the sections are more logically broken down and the article does not read like a laundry list.

Alternately, you could convince me that I'm totally wrong about the whole thing and I might change my mind. :) Protonk (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Otter's comments

• The site was down for a week due to an attack, this didn't get any media attention and seems trivial. Could be generalised into the site is a frequent target of hackers or similar.
  • That's true, though surprisingly (since it seems some journalists live on the site...!) there was no RS coverage of the recent DDoS. Or of anything else (at least, I haven't found any). Not sure if I should just remove it (it was partially kept in to prevent OR postings while the attack was taking place). —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Chocolate Rain; "were posted on 4chan on July 11, 2007." this source is 4chanarchive.org why is this date significant? is there any proof this is the first time it was posted?
  • The date is somewhat significant as, prior to it, "Choclate Rain" was just another song on YouTube. As far as I can gather that is the original posting, considering some of the stuff on it has made its way onto motivational posters across the internet. (See here for what 4chan archive is; it's basically the most reliable way to cite 4chan threads (since they're deleted off the original site, and only selected threads are archived).) —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • As far as you can gather is originial research?--Otterathome (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Seeing as how 4chan took part in the attack along with other sites against ebaumsworld and didn't get significant media attention, it seems trivial for it to be mentioned in the lead.
  • Played around with the lead a bit; better? —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Why does 'moot's identity' need to be under media attention? an interview isn't really what I call media attention. might just be better merging under history heading
  • (See comments below on restructuring of the article format. —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
• The 'Internet memes' all seem jumbled up, why does Chocolate Rain deserve a seperate section while lolcats and rickrolling just get mentions?
  • (See comments below on restructuring of the article format. —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
• The KTTV Fox 11 news report doesn't mention 4chan, so is a slashdot article reliable enough to back it up that it was a report about 4chan? A decently reliable source is needed or the entire section could be considered unsourced.
  • The Slashdot piece in question was published by Rob Malda, the founder of Slashdot. I consider him reliable in this context (but I'm happy to discuss). —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Protonk on the images. In the screenshot I would suggest blurring the images with an unknown source or even replacing them with free images.--Otterathome (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (See above; this has been resolved. —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
• The lead says users took part in project chanology, then the header for chanology is "Links to Project Chanology" - they are either linked to it or took part, which is it?
  • Clarified lead as part of an above point. —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Merging all of the meme's into two paragraphs under Internet meme's section may be suitable. Completely agree with Protonk comments on the Media section.--Otterathome (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

I've edited the the front page image so the other images aren't shown--Kip Kip 18:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! —Giggy 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on article layout

Okeys, been thinking about this a bit, and have come up with the following for the table of contents... let me know what you think.

Current format

    * 1 History
    * 2 Layout
          o 2.1 /b/
    * 3 Anonymity
    * 4 Media attention
          o 4.1 eBaum's World attacks
          o 4.2 NFL bomb threat hoax
          o 4.3 Hal Turner
          o 4.4 "Chocolate Rain"
          o 4.5 KTTV Fox 11 news report
          o 4.6 Pflugerville High School terrorist threat
          o 4.7 Melbourne gun threat
          o 4.8 Links to Project Chanology
          o 4.9 moot's identity
          o 4.10 Google Hot Trends subversion
    * 5 See also
    * 6 References
    * 7 External links

Proposed format (please discuss below)

    * 1 Formation
          o 1.1 moot                   (Was the moot's identity section + anything else about him...)
    * 2 Layout
          o 2.1 /b/
          o 2.2 Anonymity              (Include "Links to Project Chanology" section here too?)
    * 3 Memes                          (Big 3 are in chrono order. Maybe include a little intro before lolcats)
          o 3.1 Lolcats
          o 3.2 Rickrolling
          o 3.3 "Chocolate Rain"
          o 3.4 Other memes            (Anything else in RS...)
    * 4 Controversies                  (Neutral section title? I'd prefer media attention.)
          o 4.1 Internet attacks       (Hal Turner, eBaum's World, KTTV(?), Google Trends)
          o 4.2 Threats of violence    (Pflugerville, Melbourne, NFL threats)
    * 5 See also
    * 6 References
    * 7 External links

So, tell me what you think. —Giggy 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good. I like media attention of controversies because only some of the attention is over a controversy about the site. Protonk (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• You changed the lead and included "attacks against notable individuals and organisations", the only mention of an individual in the article being attacked his Hal Turner, and the only organisation is the Google Trends abuse. Please start the restructuring of the article.--Otterathome (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, here's the main layout change, just need to iron out any awkwardness that it introduced now. Will get to that (and the lead) ASAP. —Giggy 01:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine by me. Otter can pass it once he's good with the changes. Thanks a LOT for reworking this one. Glad to see something related to Anon make GA. This way when they go to delete it again, it will be all the more fun. :) Protonk (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reworked the lead; better? —Giggy 10:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Replace the chocolate rain image with a lolcat or rickroll image, and change the specific dates using 4chanarchive.org as a source (as mentioned above) then this can pass as a GA.--Otterathome (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the dates. Not sure why you want the image changed? —Giggy 08:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Per the fair use concerns above, so a free image should be used instead.--Otterathome (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... there are no free rickroll images, so I through in a lolcat one. Thanks for clarifying ;-) —Giggy 01:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Undoing of my edit

I removed the text "The site's "/b/" board is particularly notorious" as "notorious" is not an objective fact, but someone's opinion. Who has the right to state something is "notorious"? It wasn't sourced or anything, but it was re-added without explanation by Giggy. What gives? how do you turn this on 00:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement is sourced in the /b/ section; the collective opinion of many reliable sources that have commented on it is that it's notorious. I can add some citations to the lead if you like, though I'd rather not (per WP:LEAD they're not really needed there). —Giggy 01:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfair policy toward gay men

4chan has several boards devoted to heterosexual pornography, including "Hardcore", "Sexy Beautiful Women", and "Yuri". Only one board is devoted to gay male images and they must be softcore yaoi illustrations, which is a niche that mainly appeals to heterosexual women. Posting images of male pornography involving real men results in banning from the "random" board. The promise of "random" banning is a smokescreen. I have noticed that the article has been scrubbed of the "fags" references, which is nice to see, but the site's philosophy is still clearly one that does not allow full participation by gay and bisexual men. I would like to see 4chan publicly state that it has this anti-gay policy, instead of hiding behind "random" banning.

If anyone is surprised by what I've written, note that the "hardcore" board, which should encompass both heterosexual and homosexual pornography given its general name, demands only heterosexual content according to 4chan's FAQ which says "Straight (male/female) pornography only." 4chan also promises that anyone who complains about their policies publicly will by banned.

Well duh. I would have figured they had a bias against gay men because they call everyone they don't like a faggot. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Then the article should make note of this. Permanently banning gay men without providing a reason and a clearly expressed anti-gay policy is abusive behavior. "You have been permanently banned from all boards for the following reason: No reason available"

The article will make a note of it as soon as a reliable source makes a note of it. To be fair, 4chan is homophobic, racist, sexist and offensive in the extreme. While the article doesn't exactly detail how awful /b/ appears to the uninitiated, it makes a fist of it. Protonk (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it help if I post the PDF I saved of the banning notice on a website, the one that says I'm permanently banned with no reason given? Would that constitute "reliable"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No. A reliable source is usually one published by a third party that engages in some form of editorial control, selection and (although not always) fact checking. If a magazine like wired or a journal like the Journal of Homosexuality covered the subject, it would count. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It wouldnt. WP:RS say that sources have to be third party and published. Also, homophobia goes with the territory when people can say things with no fear of those things being traced back to them due to anonymity. What did you really expect from a group whose identifying term among groups is <identifier>+fag, for exam ple: Eurofag, Ausfag, Britfag, etc. Besides, who really cares? If you dont like 4chan, you dont have to go there. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 03:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How convenient for 4chan. Nonetheless, the 4chan FAQ clearly shows that it doesn't allow anything but heterosexual pornography in its "hardcore" section, which is anti-gay bias that can be noted right now. The worst problem, though, is the supposedly random permanent banning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an odd remark. Protonk (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Note, the previous reply was in response to "How convenient for 4chan." by itself. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We should care because it's relevant to the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about why we should care. I was remarking on how it seemed odd to describe the wikipedia reliable source guidance as "convenient" for 4chan. Protonk (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was not responding to your post directly, but one above which I tried to respond to by inserting a comment after it but that was reverted so I posted below yours. A comment above asks "who cares". It's relevant to the article, the comments you and the other person have made about the site's use of slurs like fags and faggot. It's relevant to the article that there is a policy against homosexual porn in a general "Hardcore" pornography sub-forum. These notes should be in the article. If you respond "well duh", that means something is obvious enough that it should be included, right?

Ok. let's work out some sort of draft sentence to be included. the Encyclopedia Dramatica article cites its about page (in a proper reading of WP:SPS). so tell me how you think a sentence describing this would go and where it should go in the article. If we can agree on something neutral, accurate and verifiable, I think we can put it in. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

4chan has several forums devoted to heterosexual pornography, and the only forum in which limited homoerotic pornography is allowed is the Yaoi forum. Yaoi is known as a form of erotica that appeals primarily to heterosexual women in that it places a very strong emphasis on romance and requires a masculine and feminine role dichotomy. 4chan's Yaoi forum restricts images to illustrations. The 4chan "Hardcore" forum requires that only heterosexual pornography be contributed, despite its general name that encompasses heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual pornography.

4chan is also notable for its common use of homophobic labels such as fag and faggot. Fag is used as a suffix for a variety of group titles.

Regarding your banning without a reason, on the Rules page of 4chan, it states that the rules of /b are ZOMG NONE!!!1, then it notes that "ZOMG NONE!!!1" applies to moderators as well. You dont need a reason to be banned on /b/, if a mod wants to ban you, he can and will. Also, regarding the supposed homophobia of 4chan, does it really matter to the article at all? Or are you just butthurt that you got banned? --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have explained how this is relevant to the article and I have discussed the nature of "random" banning and how it relates to 4chan's apparently obvious homophobia.

Your draft "sentence" violates WP:UNDUE. The size of the passage you want to add roughly equals the size of the section regarding moot's identity. As I really dont believe that a mention of 4chan's homophobia is equivalent in importance to moot's identity, I think you should trim that passage considerably. Your second sentence requires an RS. Heck, the way your first passage is worded, it also needs an RS... Again, I ask, why do you really want to insert this passage so much? Butthurt much? --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 04:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and your suggestion that /hc/'s rules prohibiting homosexual pornography is evidence of an anti-gay bias violates WP:SYN. An RS has not stated this as such, and you can't go from one point to the other without inserting your own bias. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 04:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, he's participating in a good faith discussion on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) as for the UNDUE weight, I agree. A one liner would probably be more appropriate given the likely source (the 'about page') and the nature of the statement. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the expression "Butthurt much?" Wikipedia terminology I'm unfamiliar with, or is it something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just my /b/tard nature poking through. It means exactly what you think it means. I'm still not convinced that the article needs such a mention. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 04:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. Look, you got banned. Move on. Wikipedia is not your army. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 04:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dangit, now I wish I had come up with that one, PCH... But for future reference, the line is "not your personal army". Still, it was a good one. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say that, but I just thought it didn't seem proper to pile on another meme. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 04:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Homophobic insults are not welcome here. As for accusations of bias, there is an obvious bias in demanding that only heterosexual pornography exist in a forum with the general name "Hardcore". That is not me inserting bias. That is due to the incorrect choice of terminology by 4chan. As for me having been banned, the "move on" comments are neither here nor there. They're not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what I'm hearing here is that somebody got bullied and now wants to try to make it some kind of lightning rod "issue". Sorry. But the woeful, awful, slings-and-arrows injustices of a random pornographic website are not notable except to those they inconvenience- er, I mean, deeply wound and wrong. - Vianello (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The personal attack here needs to stop. I have made a legitimate note about 4chan, one that has been called obvious by three people here alone. Now, I am being the target of completely inappropriate comments like "butthurt much". This is not what I expect from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm the first to agree with you that it isn't too cool for you to be called 'butthurt', but that isn't "wikipedia" doing that to you. That is GhostStalker. It is his choice of wording (one not unique to /b/, it is very common in the military as well), not anyone else's. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll apologize for using that term and step back for a bit. But you are still making a pretty big mountain out of a molehill... --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 04:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the recent comments trying to dismiss what I've written with personal attack are uncalled for. Posts like "who cares" and "move on" are not helpful. They're just distracting from the legitimate process we were undertaking which is the revision of an addition for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not doing anything wrong. 4chan's homophobia is apparently obvious enough to elicit reactions like "well duh" from multiple people and yet there is nothing about it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

admonitions to move on aren't personal attacks. Statements like "who cares" aren't personal attacks. The fact remains that what goes in this article (which is on a cusp of a GA nomination) will come from reliable sources, not supposition on the part of editors. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is it noted in a newspaper? Is it on the news? Is it in a magazine? If you answered no to these three questions, then our answer to you is no, we can't put it in. Not to mention this whole claim is original research. And as for the move on comment, I'm just taking this at face value. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 04:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"cough troll cough", "butthurt much", "you got bullied", "we're not your army", "move on", "mountain out of a molehill" and the like - all that is ad hominem. It is personal attack designed to denigrate what I have to say by trying to make me out to be a person who is out of control. Instead of focusing on the actual issue, which is 4chan's homophobia, people are increasingly turning on me as if that makes the issues with 4chan irrelevant. There is no supposition on the issue with the Hardcore forum, for instance. That's spelled out in the FAQ. Is there supposition in the statement that groups are tagged with "fag" as a suffix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, only the first two are personal attacks. The last four are maybe uncivil. Protonk (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of arguing about this, how about revising my suggested addition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

...ok. Let's start again. This time show me the source that you are going to use for your claim. What part of the rules/faq are you going to cite and what is the url? Protonk (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not about to jump into this full-bore, but I will point out that /b/ has, over the course of a day, SEVERAL threads full of homosexual pornography. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

/hc/ is the hard alternative to /s/. It says so right in the rules you want to quote, OP. If you're so upset by this, just email moot. If he gets enough emails saying "We want a REAL gay board!" he's more likely to do so. And besides, think about it. You complain about the anti-gay bias of 4chan, down to people using the word fag as a suffix to denote groups of people. Do you really think a gay board would be at all well received? I wish there was a gay board, even though I myself am not gay. It's only fair, after all, and if I don't want to look at gay porn, I don't look at it. My suggestion is not to bitch on Wikipedia about it, because we can do absolutely nothing about it. Go to moot with your grievances. Howa0082 (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

4chan is full of all kinds of posts specifically crafted to incite drama, posted by users who have more of an intent to troll than an intent to express their hatred of any certain minority. While I HAVE seen hateful treatment by users of male homosexuals in particular (I haven't looked recently, but I doubt the hardcore board bans for lesbians, and never, in all my years, have I ever seen such a thread deleted or its OP banned for a lesbian thread), they certainly aren't as big a focus of /b/tard hate as, say, furries or Scientologists. While terms such as newfag, oldfag, Ausfag, and Britfag are prevalent still, most of these are at worst bastardized pejoratives which have lost their meaning, much like the word motherfucker is a stock insult rather than an implication that someone actually fucks their own mother, and the rest are often just friendly, if a bit insulting to the uninitiated, general terms for whatever specific group they are mentioning. At least in my time browsing 4chan, I've treated this behavior as relatively harmless trolling at worst, and I don't really think a sizeable majority of /b/tards have an intense hate and dislike for gays, male or female. And in the context of the hardcore board, if you want my guess, I'd bet that homosexual pictures are banned simply because that's not the kind of porn that the people demanded, and that instead of getting a relatively healthy board, moot would instead get a board that serves only to generate mounds of complaints from people bitching about how the content is not to their liking. (Steampowered (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)).