Talk:4chan

you should add the theat against stortinget to the article

2 bomb threats was posted against stortinget on april 2th. source: nrk. links can not be possted however. i did try. 84.208.108.74 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I have added the information to the article. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Regarding 4chan being hacked

I know not much information has come out around the VERY recent hacking, but keep in mind this would be trivial to include in the article, once more info comes out. Qrunch2 (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

They leaked the ENTIRE SOURCE CODE and doxxed ALL THE MODS

4chan is --> was? The site is down now

Also the last thing posted was CHICKEN JOCKEY DatChernobylGuy (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The claim about the chicken jockey post being the last ever is incorrect or incomplete at best, as it was only the last post on /qa/ but not in every board. For instance, I did a quick search in the archives and found posts made as late as 22:09:32 EST on /pol/ or /int/; 18 seconds after the chicken jockey post on /qa/. 45.169.149.103 (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The article cited also said that it was only allegedly the last post. Madeline5834 (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The Sun just published this article.

But still, I don't think that's enough. Better wait. Katsumi a.k.a. Upperdecker2562 (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

See below for not including The Sun, as it is not a reliable source. Knitsey (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Katsumi a.k.a. Upperdecker2562 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes I remember that Wikipedia editors are the hugest dunces in the world when they lock articles to “protect against vandalism” but can’t be assed to add up to date information, meanwhile shit like the Ukraine war or Hamas-Israel conflict gets constant updates and corrections regardless of “source reliability”

Add this shit to the article, the website is going down, soyjak.party unironically won. 69.9.82.206 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

the site was shut down yes but the hacker isnt related to soyjak party at all. they are foodists who ruin articles with false advertisement, so should be deleted. Whiteingale andrew (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

no it was soyjak party, QA reopened during the hack with the message “soyjak party won” 2605:B100:524:D012:F5F3:4BFF:B098:3AC7 (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The leak of admin emails contains numerous.edu domains but no .gov. Emails. I’ve seen this repeated multiple times since last night but have the list in front of me, that’s not accurate info. 2600:387:F:5E15:0:0:0:8 (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

the information about the hack on the article is quite scarce, not mentioning known information such as the hack being the result of a legacy codebase, as well as the overall extent (hacker got access to the janitor only board and posts were made that impersonated the owner) 86.61.73.246 (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

KnowYourMeme

@Knitsey: reliability of a source is dependent on context and I'm 99% sure KnowYourMeme is reliable enough for information I added. MinervaNeue (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

A major site being down needs reliable sourcing. This isn't a trivial issue. Can I suggest you take it to the article talk page, there is a thread already started there. Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Oops, I thought this was a response on your talk page. I'm a humpty. Sorry about that. Knitsey (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

As this is a major issue for 4chan, this would need reliable sources for its inclusion. The sources you added are user generated and are completely unsuitable for the claims, especially when including the username you added. Knitsey (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Then can it be shortened to just "On 15th April 2025, 4chan was hacked." before there's reliable enough sourcing? MinervaNeue (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

It still needs reliable sources. There is a suggestion above that The Sun article should be included, but The Sun (United Kingdom) is also unreliable. This list is not exhaustive, but might help Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Knitsey (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you should find a reliable source instead of just deleting the information. 4chan is obviously down and mainstream media is widely reporting on the leak. 149.167.186.203 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:BURDEN. Knitsey (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

There was no reason you couldn't have just left a tag for needing a better citation. Taking it upon yourself to remove the information which was obviously true is a great example of Wikipedia editors have a reputation for being such dogmatic, unreasonable, prissy nerds. 149.167.186.203 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I remind you of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The information in the edit was of such a nature, site shut down, named editors etc, that suitable sources were needed. This has now been done by another editor. We return to the onus being on the editor adding the info. There wasn't any rush, Wikipedia isn't a source for breaking news, especially when unverified. Knitsey (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I get that you're obsessed with WP:RS, but WP:COMMONSENSE should also apply. When a global site like 4chan goes down and it's being discussed all over the internet, maybe you don't need to act like a digital hall monitor. Nobody’s saying rely solely on KnowYourMeme, but nuking the whole thing instead of tagging it is ridiculous. 149.167.186.203 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised looking at your contributions that 90% of it is reverting other people's edits and then lecturing them on their talk pages?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.167.186.203 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

See WP:KYM. It is user generated and is generally not considered a suitable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, generally. It's enough for the simple fact of being hacked. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

someone correct the date that 4chan was hacked

i cant edit the article because it's semi-protected but 4chan was hacked on the 14th, not the 15th. even the article that is used as a reference says it went down on monday, and that was the 14th. NemyacX (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed, good catch Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 16:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2025

Janitors, moderators, and admins had their data hacked and published. While those who use the 4chan pass and email verification were also hacked, those claiming responsibility stated they had no intention of releasing their data 31.7.242.222 (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

When should this article refer to 4chan in past tense?

How long should we wait until we treat it in the past-tense, similar to other now discontinued forums and website like Club Penguin or Miiverse? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It's only been a few days, and I've seen no indication that this attack is shutting down 4chan permanently. To answer your question though: Whenever an official announcement by the team is made that the site isn't going to come back. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 21:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I initially thought that it should be referred to in past tense after a month if it were still offline. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Why does this article currently refer to 4chan in the past tense? There's no source or wikitext description for 4chan being gone for good or having plans to shutdown. This is almost certainly not a usable source, but I have seen multiple 4chan staff members share an alleged admin email claiming that the site is coming back.

Regardless, I agree with @Taffer; and, there is no source for 4chan being gone for any longer than temporarily, so doesn't this mean the present-tense should remain as it was? RhymeWrens (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Be bold and revert Special:Diff/1286120078/1286150209 by yourself. I'll endorse undoing it. 84.250.15.152 (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

In October 2024, the Internet Archive got totally pwned. At the time, some people thought that it might be the end of the road for the Internet Archive, but it is back online today. The same is true for 4chan, the site obviously now needs a major revamp, but it is far too early (and unsourced) to be writing obituaries.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2025

May someone revert the false information along with the NPOV that has been edited in from 1:22 UTC forward? 4chan's staff have not announced a permanent shutdown at all. 69.172.138.150 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Your edit request would not be usually done for being unclear what changes you want to be made. To convert this into an actual edit request, on your behalf: Please undo Special:Diff/1286120078/1286150209. 84.250.15.152 (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Changes have been made to remove the addition of unsourced (and some restated) information. RhymeWrens (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Rhyme: Special:Diff/1286163380/1286164247. 84.250.15.152 (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)