The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
4chan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
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.
This is not a forum for general discussion of 4chan. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. All additions to the article require reliable sources for verification. Even the additions you want to make. Wikipedia does not accept original research; if you believe something to be true, you must be able to prove it.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
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)[reply]
They leaked the ENTIRE SOURCE CODE and doxxed ALL THE MODS
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)[reply]
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”
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
4ch is still down but the wikipedia article still says its been active and running since 2022
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah basically all the sources confirm 4chan isn't coming back up any time soon. You can refer to something in the past tense in the current moment and then revert it later, this happens to a lot of sites. Seeing as this may go on for several months, past tense just seems like the realistic option, otherwise the initial impression the article gives off is that 4chan still exists and is a functional forum. 41.133.211.151 (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime soon isn't the same as ever again, which is what referring to the site in past tense implies. If articles for other sites have been edited to past tense for outages, they shouldn't have been. As of now, there hasn't been any indication(that I've seen at least) that this outage is anything other than temporary. If we were to change it to past tense, it'd have to be following some official announcement from the staff or after much longer than a week. Taffer😊💬(she/they)16:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]