|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 8chan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully.|
|This page is not a forum for general discussion about 8chan. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 8chan at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.|
|Wikipedia is not censored.|
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding objectionable content and options to not see an image.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view.|
|Dailyof this article|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
|This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 365 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
"Was" vs "Is"
The lede currently says that "8chan was..." a website. It is clear from the rest of the article that while the website's clearnet presence is down (possibly for good), it still exists on the darkweb. So, referring to 8chan in the past tense is incorrect. It should be "8chan is..." a website. I made this change but it was reverted without comment by Ehuang3190. Thoughts? Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I just want to add that the chance of them not finding another clearnet site is virtually nil. People jumped up and down when Gab went offline, (insisting on the "was" terminology), and Daily Stormer as well for that matter. There are always lines of providers ready to take them up. 2601:982:4200:A6C:F0D7:F213:2962:FF3 (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed that it should be "is". I've just changed it back, again, with a note to discuss here before changing it to "was". GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL obviously becomes involved here, but is there any sign of if and when the site is coming back? It has not been available on the clearweb or Tor for weeks, but the article is still talking about 8chan as though it is an active website. This can't continue indefinitely.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- As with unaffiliated imageboard 4chan, the site is linked to harmful activism ...
Why does the article mention the August 4th Dayton shooting in the sentence about 8chan being taken off the clearnet? As far as we know, that shooting had nothing to do with 8chan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samspore (talk • contribs) 04:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- It seems that a fair number of sources mentioning the shooting and 8chan also mention the Dayton shooting. Because the shootings were so soon after one another, they seem to have made a stronger impact and almost considered one event by some news articles. It's less that the Dayton shooting was in any way related to 8chan, but rather the reaction to the El Paso shooting was perhaps made stronger by the other shooting so soon after it. I see the argument for not including it in this article, but I also see why it's mentioned in tandem. If I had to register a !vote it would be to remove the mention of the Dayton shooting, but it makes sense to wait for other opinions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
QAnon section in article
"With a flood of new users on the board, Q asked Ron to upgrade the website's servers"
- Hi Cannonmc, At 8chan#History it says "Brennan himself officially resigned in July 2016, turning the site over to its owner, Jim Watkins and his son, Ron", Maybe somewhere in the lede it should include Jim and Ron as if no one reads the whole top half of the article no one's going to know. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 13:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed that that's really confusing. I've added a little more explanation:  GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I have attempted to revert the Antisemitism sidebar as this article does not provide any context which would justify its use, but I have been reverted repeatedly:of the
- @Beyond My Ken: "Undid revision 915002191 by Lmatt (talk)"
- @Grayfell: "Undid revision 915005969 by Lmatt (talk) It discusses the alt-right and a synagogue shooting."
- @Grayfell: "Undid revision 915025600 by Lmatt (talk) If you're not willing to discuss on the talk page, stop edit warring."
There appears to be consensus on Talk:4chan § Antisemitism template not include the template on that article:
It isn't in dispute that there is a ton of antisemitic material on the site, but there is also material attacking blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, anyone the alt-right dislikes. The problem with this edit is that it gives excessive prominence to something that is not discussed and cited in the article.
— User:Ianmacm 16:54, 10 September 2019
8chan also appears to be linked to the alt-right which is why it is rightly included in the Alt-right navbox at the bottom of the page, but similarly to 4chan I don't believe the Antisemitism sidebar is justified in this article. Lmatt (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is surreal that the article doesn't mention 8chan's anti-Semitism. This is a gap in the article which needs to be corrected, since this is a defining trait according to a large number of sources. I will add some of those now, so be patient. Since articles are works-in-progress, if the template is what has prompted the article to be updated, so be it. It's not the ideal approach, but the end result is the improvement of the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, because you and I are not the only ones involved, so that would also be edit warring. I asked you to be patient. The article will need some more serious work. See my comments below. Once this is resolved, choosing which templates apply will be much simpler. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Having both is somewhat redundant, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The alt-right and antisemitism are different, overlapping topics. I think an expansion of this article will help to explain how 8chan is specifically connected to antisemitism.
- As for Template:Antisemitism, this isn't be the place to discuss which links belong there and which don't. Still, compared to other listed articles like Jew Watch or William Luther Pierce (and both of his novels) this website seems comparably significant. Tomorrow I will work on expanding this article, per below, and either the template will make more sense, or it won't. Grayfell (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I do think it is not appropriate to have the Antisemitism sidebar on this page. 8chan never stated that Antisemitism was its mission. 8chan only allowed a place for Antisemites to congratulate. Playing devil's advocate, if allowing a place for Antisemites to congregate makes that place Antisemitic, then there are a good number of public places such as parks and other municipal property that should also have the Antisemitism sidebar add to the respective wiki pages. By the same errant logic all of Germany and Poland should have Antisemitism sidebar add to there pages because that is were the The_Holocaust took place mainly. The Antisemitism sidebar needs to be removed because it has nothing to do with 8chan proper. Antisemites were (are on the dark web) only a part of the user base of 8chan.
Thinking out load, it may be a good idea to spawn a new pages for the culture of 8chan. Such a page would make sense to include Antisemitism sidebar, as Antisemitism were part of the users of 8chan. This page could also go into detail about the number of other sub-cultures that used 8chan. 8chan culture could include a more detailed account of how the site was alt-right and what antisemitic activity happened on the site. There were also boards for cos-players and Hikikomori which makes casting the whole of 8chan as alt-right and antisemitic miss-leading to readers. I don't want to stick my nose out too far here, but it might be a good idea to try to keep the wiki neutral in the face of popular media's opinions of 8chan and how its users don't fit into the media's narratives in general. Practically, that would only mean making a clear distinction between the governance of 8chan (8chan proper) and the people who chose to use it. The same way that 8chan was more than solely an antisemitic rag, very politically liberal news out lets do well researched stories. This naturally leads to questions about alt-right. Because 8chan ownership didn't take an active place in encouraging minority conservative views, instead leaving them uncensored. (I know, Pinkhats shutter the world over.) Because of 8chan uncensored stance, it would be perhaps better to consider including 8chan as part of Libertarian-ism and not part of the alt-right. Again, I think a wiki page navigating these sensitive topics regarding the user base of 8chan is warranted.
The Antisemitism sidebar should be removed, 8chan is an imageboard, nothing about it purposely attracts certain types of people or ideology. There's plenty of users and boards on the site that didn't talk about Antisemitism, it's misleading to users to include the sidebar. Even 8chan ownership and moderators didn't actively encourage this behavior, as it has a hands off approach with monitoring. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Reorganizing the article and rewriting the lede
Since it seems that this is a bigger issue than just a navigation template, I have started a new section.
I dispute this rewording. Many sources link the site to racism and anti-Semitism. Some use these specific phrases, and some do not. Many sources do not specifically say racist, but say white supremacist or white nationalist. This is, fundamentally, racist, and this would be the simplest way to summarize this without getting bogged down in euphemisms and word-games. Attributing this description as a quote implies that it is one source's subjective opinion, or that this is an unusual or significant way to describe the site. It is not. We should accept that when many reliable sources describe a topic in a certain way, as a factual matter, they know what they are talking about. Based on these sources, we should summarize in our own words.
As an extension of this, I was planning to expand the article to create a 'content' section, and to move some of the controversies to that section. "Controversies" could then be renamed "notable incidents". Everything about this site is "controversial", including most of the content in the "history" section. Arranging the article in just these two sections is misleading about why the site is notable. By arranging to explain what it actually is, and what is posted on it, and then introducing specific examples, the article will be clearer and more neutral, per WP:CSECTION.
- My edit was an attempt to make the wording more neutral, but since the site has been described as a "cesspool of hate" it may be difficult to find the right balance. In response to your point about reorganizing the article, I am in broad agreement with your approach, if we can both try to assume good faith than we can easily work together on this. Lmatt (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, we probably could've worked together on this, but edit warring prevented that. I'm not sure why removing traits from the lede was intended to be more neutral, but I do not accept that.
- Who described it as a cesspool of hate? I agree, but why is that one off-hand description the best one for the lede? Is Cloudflare's CEO an expert on hate groups? Again, using a subjective quote as the foremost way to convey a point is implying to readers that this is a subjective point. Again, I agree that this idea can be included in the lede, but not the way in which it's being done.
- The site is/was rife with conspiracy theories, but that's not all. Sources discuss the site's general racism and antisemitism in broad terms. To put this another way, sources accept that 8chan is racist in a broad array of ways, and they now treat this is a fact, not an opinion.
- To complicate things more, the site's connection to conspiracy theories isn't limited to racism and antisemitism, as the sections on Gamergate/pizzagate/QAnon explain. (These theories are also frequently racist or antisemitic, but not universally defined as such by sources). For this reason, I really don't think it's helpful to add two different links to List of conspiracy theories in the lede. That list-article's coverage of relevant theories is sparse, and its usefulness to readers in this context is limited.
- Additionally, "harmfull internet vigilantism" is offensively euphemistic and misleading, as well as soft-selling their behavior. Is swatting supposed to be vigilantism, or was this doxxing? Surely not the mass shootings, right? Where in the article is this term supported? Which source supports "vigilantism"? Who is the target of this vigilantism? Vigilantism is also not supported by the attached source, or did I miss it? Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Motion to have page protection upgraded to Semi-protected status
- Edit warring directly mentioned 2 times, referanced 1 time, appeares a total of 3 times on talk page to date.
- Starting in 2019-08 and continuing to 2019-10 (present), there has been a high rate of edits from either young accounts or not logged in users which were then subsequently reverted after the edit had been added.
I would like to moviton for the page 8chan to be upgraded to Semi-protected status. Currently the page has Pending changes protection. The suggested change is inline with the conditons for what Semi-protected status is appropriate for and the conditions observed in the page being nominated for the status. 8chan is a very contraversal topic and can attract less the good-faith edits. Such edits have already been obsered on the history page. Given the further likely hood of the page's topic to garner Anti-social edits, changing the Protection status is warranted.
I had edited the page to add the current URL of this website, but my change was reverted. The current URL for this website is https://8kun.net. I am not sure why it was removed, since the other URLs are marked as dead. There is no article for the newly relaunched 8kun so it makes sense to put a live link on the page.
- I've just tried to visit https://8kun.net/ and it looks to be down; maybe they are having some teething problems at the moment. The sourcing agrees that this is a relaunch with a new name rather that a different site. I'll be interested to see it when it actually works:)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- And still waiting to visit the site, although theoretically it has been live for a week. No server response from the site, stone dead at the moment. The domain 8kun.net was registered on 12 September 2019. The Wayback Machine has some snapshots of the site when it was actually working, such as here on 5 November. It looks as though 8kun.net may have run into difficulties which have prevented the site from going live, such as arguments over the domain registration and/or hosting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- See the above section. The key word here is "apparently". I've just had a look at https://8kun.net/ this morning and it still isn't up. Watch this space.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Re this edit: it seems uncontroversial that the site has returned at https://8kun.top and also on Tor at jthnx5wyvjvzsxtu dot onion which is also working OK. The only problem is that the MSM doesn't seem to have caught up with this yet. They have noted that 8kun.net went offline a few days after its launch  but don't seem to have found 8kun.top. 8chan's official Twitter page still says 8chan.net, which isn't very helpful.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Wayback Machine removal of 8chan archived images following the El Paso Shooting
So, I noticed that Wayback Machine/Internet Archive removed all the 8chan images files that they had archived (the images under the https://media.8ch.net address), the archived posts themselves are still available but without the images. Isn't this worth mentioning? I think so, but I usually don't write wikipedia articles, just some info that I found out and couldn't find anywhere in this article. You guys can check for yourselves:
Try to access any 8chan image archived on wayback machine, like this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20190705152625/https://media.8ch.net/file_store/266b0f66d9fbc4e10ea018bc52e8c924427c44db82ecfa4b60ec699ccbc42557.jpg
And you'll see the following message: "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine."
Since there were people archiving the Wayback Machine 8chan archived posts in other services, such as Archive.Today, until at least 7 August 2009, they obviously allowed images to be archived on wayback machine before the event, as you can see here: https://archive.li/35nIh
- The message "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine" could have various possible reasons, and deliberate censorship is only one of them. Sometimes a robots exclusion standard (often known as robots.txt) specifies that some things should not be archived. There is original research here, and it is hard to say why the images do not show up on the Wayback Machine. I've come across some archived websites on the Wayback Machine where the images did not display correctly, but did not assume that censorship was the cause.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about "deliberate censorship", I simply state the fact that the images were archived there and now they aren't. Although the time-frame is very suspicious, isn't? The archived images were available on wayback machine until before the shooting (again, we know that because there were people re-archiving 8chan images archived on wayback machine on other services, such as Archive.Today), and then all of sudden are taken down? If you don't want to state "oh, wayback machine censored the image", ok, but isn't worth to mention, at least, that "hey, the images were there until X days and sometime after this day they were removed for some reason?" Eric120212 (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- It would be original research to discuss the removals if they have not been discussed elsewhere in reliable sources. It is not up for us to look at an event like that and decide it is relevant to the Wikipedia article -- if a reliable source decides it is worth discussing then we can consider adding it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this is noteworthy at all, and including it would absolutely be original research.--Jorm (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The Wayback Machine admins may remove material such as terror propaganda videos, or if the copyright owner objects. However, there is a clear WP:OR problem with the El Paso material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Although the time-frame is very suspicious, isn't?-- see RationalWiki's "Just Asking Questions" for why we're going to assume you believe there was deliberate censorship. Now, you might say "but I really don't," but then why does it matter that the images aren't there anymore? Like I said, it happens pretty often with websites where the images were stored separately from the main website -- which wouldn't be a particular issue for this article but maybe (if a reliable source complained about this oversight by Internet Archive) for the article on Internet Archive. I can't begin to think of any stance from which this issue would be relevant to this article except from the perspective that there's censorship going on. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)