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)

Mentioning CP is not illegal. Jolly Ω Janner 01:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, and my language was perhaps somewhat overly dramatic. i dont think the article is truly libelous, but i do apologize for coming on strong like that. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• PS I have added an explanation about the Pedobear meme to the article backed up be reliable sources in the form of literature. Jolly Ω Janner 01:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The definition for Pedobear in that text is cited from Wikipedia. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{ spring • ahead}} 03:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mercurywoodrose, you know that moot's alleged real name "Christopher Poole" is a fake name right, with references to 4chan memes CP (child porn) and Pool's closed ( Habbo Hotel pranks), right? That was the point of my edit you reverted. And it can't be libel since it's obviously not the guy's real name and he chose it as an in-joke related to those things. Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 21:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, WP:NOR - which also prevents you from cross-referencing the "obscure joke" quote with your knowlege of memes as WP:SYNTH. -- King ♣ Talk 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If only I worked at Fox News, I could make Wikipedia more accurate place. Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 21:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Most conservative reliable sources wouldn't touch Pedobear. It's just too controversial. Jolly Ω Janner 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

They could do a whole scare tactics twist. Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I had read that, and then forgotten it. My point is quite simple: i think we need to keep this article clean of inferences that 4chan in any way promotes or tolerates the distribution or positive discussion of child porn, unless there are sourced references to any of this kind of discussion. that could include links to 4chan itself. to me, that just keeps the article more NPOV. i know that an anonymous site like this, with lots of injokes and sarcasm, is gonna go all over the place, and that doesnt mean that anyone is an "advocate" of cp. but a newcomer to the article and subject should be able to walk away with a sense of the rampant silliness or juvenile behavior (not that i am above such silliness myself), and not be drawn into thinking that its a dark site, unless (and i havent really looked into it) there are reliable third party sources which say 4chan is problematic. it requires lots of distance from subject. but im not trying to force anything here, im just curious about what other people think of this perhaps overly critical observation. thanks by the way for letting me join in. in an article like this, consensus is probably extremely important. it seems like my small deletion, though, may be ok. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is an absolute VIOLATION of NPOV to sanitize an article of elements of a subject you (or society) finds distasteful. Wikipedia is not censored. That extends to more than just profanity. The 'rampant silliness' you're talking about is only reached once a user gets past the quickly-closed CP threads and the blatant racism- but this doesn't mean they can't be in the article. If you read an article about a city, and that article omitted crime statistics to avoid giving readers the 'wrong idea', how would you feel about that after you got mugged? -- King ♣ Talk 12:37, 5 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)

As I said below, the article feels biased against 4chan and /b/ in that it makes out "child pornography" to be a prominent feature on /b/. It is not, and if you were asked to provide actual hard statistics on the ratio of "CP to everything else", you couldn't do it. So, I ask, what are these lines about "CP" truly based on? 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. It's easy to compare this to the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident... in which the majority of his article TWO YEARS after the fact was about that single incident... not about his years on Seifeld or doing stand-up. It's shameful to come across such a violation of NPOV. There's a fine line to be drawn on the subject. We need to agree on a line or two to briefly mention the existence of child pornography on /b/, and leave it at that. Also, avoid using such terms as "pedobear is the most popular meme", such things cannot be proven and are ridiculous. Gpia7r ( talk) 14:04, 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)

It shouldn't have an inline citation, because it should be mentioned later on in the article along with an inline citation there. But does it even need to be mentioned? CP is just an acronym for child porn. It's used outside of 4chan. Jolly Ω Janner 01:53, 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) 

As "cp" is a term used outside of 4chan, it does not need to be in the top of this article as though a spotlight is shining on it. I would love to see the statistics of "CP Threads vs Every Other Thread", and see how significant it really is. It's hard to cite something that doesn't exist, and is merely based on hearsay and in-passing... Yes, we know the occasional child pornography exists on 4chan in rare occasions... but if asked to prove it, could anyone? I'm not denying it's there, but the article makes it sound like it's a prominent part of /b/ Gpia7r ( talk) 14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

here is a link to an article about 4chan-run Google bombings. I'd note at least in the article that 'CP' is taken with a silly tone, a kind of "everyone wants it, no one can post it" vibe, leading to threads like "POST CP" - followed by people posting pictures of Captain Picard, or Cargo Pants, things with the initials CP. I haven't found a source for that yet. -- King ♣ Talk 16:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The acronym CP is not notable to 4chan. It's used across much of the Internet. Whether or not child pornography is notable to 4chan is another matter. Jolly Ω Janner 16:51, 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)

As we said above, it's unlikely reliable sources would want to write about a pedophilic bear. Jolly Ω Janner 21:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, I just get the feeling that this 4chan phenomena is being whitewashed. 4chan is extremely popular worldwide, but no one wants to touch the fact that it basically is mainstreaming internet pedophilia. Can you imagine seeing a dad out with his kids wearing a Pedobear t-shirt? ( http://www.pedobearstore.com/) You probably will one of these days. Penneth ( talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"It's unsettling"? I could make a picture of a dog and call it "rapedog", but it means nothing. If you have a personal vendetta against 4chan, so be it. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't let it influence your perception of fact. 4chan is NOT "mainstreaming internet pedophilia", that's an absurd statement. A true, filthy pedophile will go to much worse places to do his or her deed. 4chan isn't considered a "go to" place to find such images. Why not mention 7chan, then? Apparently that's known to be hardly moderated at all, and a "breeding ground for CP"... why? Because 4chan is more popular. "Mainstreaming internet pedophilia" is far from truth. Gpia7r ( talk) 23:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Pedobear is a symbol of pedophilia on 4chan. It is posted with actual child porn. I have already stated that I have no vendetta against 4chan. I'm just sayin', there's far more to it than lolcats and rickrolling. It's bursting with hard-core gore, pornography, some of it kiddie, and much else that is sordid. Also, I googled pedobear t-shirts and got 25,800 results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.42.38 ( talk) 01:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I just googled my own made-up word, Rapedog, and got 34,600. Google is not a meter of how popular something is. "Pedobear" is posted in more non-CP threads than CP. Pedobear is a joke, it is a humorous "idea", and is not necessarily DIRECTLY associated with the posting of CP. The joke is the mere aspect of CP, and the humor around it (captain picard, colored pencils, etc)... and oftentimes when it is posted, it doesn't live long enough to be seen by most people. Sure, there are occasions when it does... but most people joke about it, rather than participate. Oftentimes it's a single person in a single thread posting his shameful "cp folder" while others comment wildly about it. So... "It is posted with actual child porn" - False. It is posted often in other threads, like the wallpaper/general thread, simply as a symbol or a humorous variation of the bear. If one person wants to run and capitalize on the internet joke because there's a following of 4chan users (Not following of pedophiles, don't mistake that), then more power to them. Currently we "sort of" still live in a capitalist society, so there's nothing wrong with that. Less than 10% of people would probably even know what it meant Gpia7r ( talk) 01:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Any rapedog t-shirts out there? You're wrong. The pedobear cartoon is often posted alongside child pornography. Just to repeat that: you're wrong and the pedobear cartoon is often posted alongside child pornography. We definitely do live in a capitalist society. It is in the process of commodifying children for sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.42.106 ( talk) 01:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please cite your claims, show sources, etc. If you can somehow prove from a "random" message board that "pedobear" is posted more often in the unbelievably rare "cp" threads than it is elsewhere, I will gladly bow out of this debate. Gpia7r ( talk) 01:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see Pedobear multiple times every single time I'm on /b/...I rarely see CP. rzrscm ( talk) 09:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the delayed reply. Your argument has shifted. Before you said that Pedobear is purely an ironic, jocular symbol. Now you're admitting that it is posted in CP threads, but that the number of times it is used jokingly far outweighs the number of times it accompanies kiddie porn. For my part, I have never claimed that Pedobear is posted the majority of time in kiddie porn threads. I've simply said that it is often posted in such threads. I believe I have won this debate because you have come around to admitting my central claim: that Pedobear is indeed posted in CP threads on 4chan. P.S. As soon as you have discovered an algorithm that can track the thousands of threads on 4chan and the quantity and nature of pedobear postings, I don't believe your above request for proof is feasible. Penneth ( talk) 18:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. This debate about Pedobear doesn't even touch on the fact that 4chan is extremely racist, that it is a place for posting random people's phone numbers so that they can be harassed, etc. Penneth ( talk) 19:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm stating that your remarks that Pedobear = CP are completely baseless and without merit. There are hundreds of other very commonly posted "memes" on /b/, and I'm sure a number of them have found their way into a rare CP thread. Should every one of them be mentioned as well? Certainly, under your logic, they should. There is no sense in calling attention to a single "meme" simply because of it's name. You should also mention the "Success kid" and "Chris Hansen" meme, as well, since they both have a link to child pornography. Why not "Socially awkward penguin" and various "Pokedads"? I've seen some of those with CP humor in them. Why not "Boxxy", "Courage Wolf", etc? I could go on and on. If you want to mention Pedobear and make the false comment that it is "(one of) the most popular meme(s)", you damn well better come up with some reliable and solid sources, of which you've failed to do. You'd be better off making a blog and spreading your propaganda there. CP exists. Pedobear exists. Neither exist because of the other. Which came first, do you know? Pedobear could have been created as a concept, an idea... but you keep striving to make this non-existant solid link between the two. Re: Racism - What does that have to do with this topic? Are you reaching for more ammo to try and back up your arguement? Strawman does NOT work here. /b/ is /b/, it's not your job to police the internet and what happens on it. Ever read the intro to it? The part where only an idiot would take anything posted there as fact? Gpia7r ( talk) 19:08, 10 August 2009

I have never said that Pedobear = CP! I've said that it's posted in CP threads. Amazingly, you have admitted this and you're still arguing. Yes, there are hundreds of memes, but pedobear was invented on 4chan (and it is being widely merchandised); every attempt I've made to mention it on Wikipedia has been censored. A few other memes might find there way into CP threads (a guy drooling, a cat saying, 'This is relevant to my interests', screams of MOAR and WINCEST, a picture of Chris Hansen from 'To Catch a Predator'). Pedobear is the most germane to those threads. I made the point about racism, and the posting of random phone numbers, to underline the fact that /b/ is not a tame corner of the internet, a breeding ground for lolcats. It's a hard-core place, and the Wikipedia article doesn't reflect that. You have already admitted that pedobear is posted in CP threads, so I don't know what we're discussing. Funnily enough, just for stating the facts about Pedobear and providing a citation, I have been threatened with a ban by someone named the King. It is not my job to police the Internet, but neither is it your job to police Wikipedia. For now, I will not repost any mention of Pedobear in the article, for it would be futile, but I would like it to be noted by Wikipedia users that I have been censored. P.S. Pedobear.org si ranked 227,972 by Alexa on the web. It is linked to by www.boyloverlinks.net. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pedobear.org Penneth ( talk) 19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(UTC)

It is not exclusively associated with CP threads, and there's the problem with your statement. You continue to try and pass off falsehoods as facts. "Pedobear is one of the most common" - This is untrue and cannot be verified. Wikipedia needs FACT and SOURCES to state such bold claims. "Pedobear is the most germane to those threads" - Again, just because you're saying it, does not make it true. This is your opinion, and it cannot be cited as fact. I agree with you that /b/ isn't a shining example of the greatest product of the Internet. If the article doesn't have a piece of "hard-core" feel to it, you aren't obligated to seek out random bits of information that aren't true. Pedobear is posted in CP threads less than it's posted in any other thread, that's the point. "Not my job to police Wikipedia"? - Sure it is, when people go posting non-facts, that's called vandilism, and I take pride in reverting it. I don't get paid for that job, but I'd like for people to not be misinformed. Yep, your non-facts sure are being censored, as they should be. Gpia7r ( talk) 19:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment about Pedobear being a reference/joke toward CP in the /b/ section of the article (rather than the top of the page). Gpia7r ( talk) 19:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You would like proof that Pedobear is a popular meme. Here you go. Out of hundreds of millions of websites on the Internet, pedobear.org is ranked 227,972 by Alexa. It's linked to by boyloverlinks.net. ( http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pedobear.org) Keep in mind that pedobear was invented on 4chan. You have conceded that it's posted in 4chan's CP threads. So what are we debating? And where is the 'joke' when a drooling or panting pedobear is posted in a thread with actual child pornography? Thank you for admitting that pedobear is occasionally posted in such CP threads. Thanks also for admitting that I'm being censored. You have still not shown where I was misinformed or false, but you have happily and brashly demonstrated that you are a censor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penneth ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You said: "Pedobear is posted in CP threads less than it's posted in any other thread, that's the point." Do YOU have proof for this? Penneth ( talk) 20:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's popular, I never said it wasn't. There are lots of popular memes on 4chan. I would venture to guess that some are posted far more than Pedobear. And just as a meme about a cartoon dog would be linked to by a dog-lover website, Pedobear probably attracts some less-than-reputable fans. MOST of the time that it is posted, it is not in a "CP" thread, or causing 4chan to (in your words) "basically mainstream internet pedophilia." And your statement that "It is posted with actual child porn" is said so solidly, without following it up with "... but also mostly in non-CP threads." Your bias is painstakingly apparent here. Then, your comment: "...it frustrates me that no news account of 4chan has mentioned Pedobear. It's ubiquitous. It's one of 4chan's unofficial emblems."... is also patently false! You're claiming it has reached such a popularity that it is an "unofficial emblem" of a random message board is silly! I'll play your game: Pedobear - 723k results on Google. Boxxy - 1.6 million. Courage Dog - 1.1 million. Any "results" you provide are flawed, as much as mine will be using your methods. Why would the news report on something they can't prove? Damn, got me there, they do it every day... you're right, we need a Dateline hour-long special about the evils of 4chan and the rampant unmoderated CP that exists there. "people boast of being 'in b4 404,' meaning they downloaded the pictures before the thread was deleted" - FALSE. You're jumping to so many conclusions. "in b4 404" is a remark that you VIEWED a thread before it was moderated, and has absolutely ZERO connection to SAVING anything. And no, I have no solid proof, it's impossible to prove. More of a common sense thing that any visitor of 4chan would come up with. 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.

Your comments also lead me to believe you've never even visitted 4chan. "drooling or panting"? Do you even know what Pedobear is based off of? It's real, and of course, it's Japanese. I don't have the info on me, and I'm not going to take a chance on 4chan while I'm at work, but it's not something a user just drew up one day. It has a backstory, and if one person threw out the name "pedobear"... it stuck and became a meme, much like the millions of other memes out there. Gpia7r ( talk) 20:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So you admit you have no proof that Pedobear is used more in non-CP threads than in CP threads. We're supposed to trust the "common sense thing" of a 4chan user. For the record, I've visited 4chan many times, notwithstanding your belief that I haven't. A drooling pedobear? Here's one: http://assets.knowyourmeme.com/system/profile/icon/582/big/pedobear_drool.jpg Panting? http://www.pedobearplush.com/ As proof of pedobear's popularity, I gave you a site ranking for pedobear.org -- a very high ranking. I said Pedobear is an unofficial emblem because it appears in one of 4chan's official banner ads. If I was mistaken about the meaning of in b4 404, I apologize. The fact remains that people on 4chan boast of getting to the CP before it's deleted. To reiterate, you've conceded pedobear is posted with actual child pornography on 4chan. Is that worth noting on Wikipedia? Finally, I think it's fair to say 4chan is helping mainstream internet pedophilia when pedobear is printed on t-shirts at a factory and apparently sold to interested boy lovers. Penneth ( talk) 20:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My only proof is seeing it. Seeing where it is and where it isn't. Seeing it is the only proof anyone has, and if you truly think I'm wrong, then please help me out. Rather than rehash what I say (three times now) and consider the arguement over, please prove what I say is wrong? Pedobear is posted more often in non-CP threads than in CP threads - I am willing to stand by that as a fact, but I cannot provide proof because it's impossible to do in writing, and a "random" board is impossible to cite. Again, show me where I'm wrong. Also, congrats for showng 2 out of 2 billion renditions of a single image. I could photoshop a picture of a US Senator having relations with a dog... but how much weight would that carry? As much as one person's rendition of a single image, as you so kindly linked to. Site rankings are meaningless, and I responded with two examples of where they don't apply, so yes, I did respond. Again, it appears on a banner - Along with tons of other memes. Are you seeing my point yet? You are shining this light on a single meme without considering the millions of other ones. I didn't "concede" anything. It's posted with CP just like a picture of a dog, a horse, or a picture of you may be posted with CP. It's irrelevant! Captain Picard is probably posted with it, too! You treat it like it is exclusive to CP, and it is NOT. Concluding that Pedobear is one of the most popular memes on a random message board will require verifiability by providing reliable sources, of which will be immediately disputed (as I have done) that the notability is worthy of being posted. Even mentioning it in passing as I suggested earlier would be silly as this is not a repository for every meme in existence, no matter how many t-shirts are made. Gpia7r ( talk) 20:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You asked me to show you where you've been wrong. Let me. A few posts ago you quoted me about pedobear and said this: "'It is posted with actual child porn' - False. It is posted often in other threads, like the wallpaper/general thread, simply as a symbol or a humorous variation of the bear." You said I was false to implicate the pedobear in child pornography threads. Subsequently you have admitted that pedobear appears in child pornography threads. You've also said that I've never visited 4chan. That's false. I was on there yesterday, and I have been on many times. You questioned whether there was a drooling or panting pedobear. I furnished you with examples of both. You said, "site ranking are meaningless." So why is it that Alexa site rankings are cited in magazine articles about 4chan? This debate is over because you have already conceded my central point. Pedobear is posted in child pornography threads. Though you denied it at first, you and I now agree on this point. Penneth ( talk) 21:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You can twist my words all you want to fit your point, but you're still wrong. I said it appears in CP threads just like any other meme or image. It appears, just as Boxxy appears, just as Courage Dog appears. It's not necessarily linked to CP threads, but it appears in them just like any other image. Your image examples were just the worst examples you could think of to fit your "negative image of pedobear" arguement. Most images are of Pedobear "running" in a certain direction. What you provide doesn't matter, because like I said, there are thousands of versions of any picture you can bring up. Like I said before, I can modify a picture to look like whatever I want, but it holds no weight to the arguement, because they are just at the whim of a single person's creativity. I conceded nothing, because the fact that pedobear appears in CP threads means nothing because there's no proof or citation or source saying that it is exclusive to CP threads. Gpia7r ( talk) 23:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Twist your words? I quoted you verbatim! The appearance of a pedophilic bear in pedophilic image threads is noteworthy. I did not modify any picture. Pedobear is commonly found on 4chan drooling. It doesn't have to be exclusive to CP threads to be noteworthy. I am finished with you. 74.233.42.18 ( talk) 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're still failing to address what I'm saying. You cannot cite or prove the notability of a single meme, and claim it has a significant meaning. There are far more controversial memes that exist, but you fail to acknowledge their existence, because all you wish to focus on is this single one. Pedobear is an image, and is used in ways far beyond "CP threads", and you fail to see that. A "know your meme" website as a citation does not carry notability or reason, and will likely be removed. The intentions of putting it in the article, too, carry little to no notability, and absolutely no verifiability. You wish to spread false information, so be it, but you know the rules of Wikipedia. Your internet "White Knight" attitude of "I'm finished with you" says a lot about your character and your unwillingness to address the facts and see the other side. Gpia7r ( talk) 17:03, 11 August 2009 (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 is still inaccurate as you choose to only focus on the negative portions of it. Again, bring up every single controversial "meme" if you plan to add that line. Gpia7r ( talk) 22:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me know what other controversial memes there are, and I will. 74.233.42.18 ( talk) 16:48, 11 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/pedobear 74.233.42.18 ( talk) 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that peer-reviewed academic source, "knowyourmeme.com". Shii (tock) 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As has been said before, there are no mainstream sources on Pedobear because nobody is brave enough to mention it. I will keep searching.

THIS IS YOUR OPINION! Your comments are dripping with a conflict of interest! There are no mainstream sources because IT CAN'T BE SOURCED. Again, just because you WANT something to be true, doesn't mean that it is! Gpia7r ( talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Remeber to keep a cool head when discussing a topic. -- Scythre ( talk) 17:27, 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)

Unverifiable, unsourcable, irrelivent. Did I ask you if there are bad pictures on /b/? Did I ask if /b/ was the "sickest place on the internet"? You're trying to use images posted by 'anonymous and random people' as a justification? There's no way to prove that you aren't the one posting those images. Plausible deniability, and your personal conflict of interest has an effect on everything you say. Gpia7r ( talk) 17:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no way I could've posted all of those pictures because 4chan has flood control. Moderators, please note that this individual has already suspected me of never having been to 4chan. Now this individual is alleging that I am on 4chan posting dozens of pictures of Pedobear, pornography and gore simply to fabricate a case. I'm getting tired of these accusations, let alone of responding to them. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 18:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the direct link: http://img.4chan.org/b/res/152123744.html 74.233.42.18 ( talk) 17:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I will post screenshots later, since that link will expire eventually. For now, it's off to work. 74.233.42.18 ( talk) 17:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:GSNR, WP:GYNOT, WP:GHITS, WP:OR, WP:POPULARITY, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:3PARTY, WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCES, and WP:REDFLAG are just a few precidents you need to consider (referring to some of your claims earlier, as well). Gpia7r ( talk) 17:59, 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)

This is absolutely ridiculous. With no source, you don't have a leg to stand on. Pedobear isn't going into the article, and neither are Advice Dog, Happy Negro, or anything else you can name (that haven't been reported on), regardless of whatever notability YOU have ascribed to them. -- King ÖÖmie III 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article cites Gawker, so I'm sure there will be no problem citing Wonkette. http://wonkette.com/410089/pedobear-chases-obama-around-internet 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Or here: http://wonkette.com/409990/dr-pedobear-will-see-you-now 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

These two sources should verify that Pedobear exists.

Of course it exists. But there is no source of notability when compared to any other meme. Gpia7r ( talk) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that this is a random and anonymous message/image board. There is no way to prove that you have not posted those images on your own, or people you know posting them on your behalf. Gpia7r ( talk) 18:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

4chan has flood control and in any case I have not posted a single one of them. It is paranoid to suggest that I've rounded up my friends to post extremely violent and sexual images on that board so as to prove an esoteric point on a Wikipedia forum. Your arguments are becoming flimsier and flimsier. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 18:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Plausible deniability. It is unverifiable. Gpia7r ( talk) 18:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is deniability, but it isn't plausible.

4chan threads are not reliable, citable, or verifiable. Period. You know this. Gpia7r ( talk) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet earlier you suggested that I go on /b/ and count the number and nature of Pedobear postings.

If you really want to make that your goal, be sure to collect statistics for every other popular meme, where they are, and how many more of them there are than Pedobear. Either way, 4chan is not a reliable source of statistics, as you cannot possibly see every thread created or every post made, or refer back to it, or prove it's verifiability, or prove it is not Original Research, or provide more sources to it's validity, or provide a reason that Pedobear is notable enough to deserve insertion to the article with the biased undertone of CP. Gpia7r ( talk) 19:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So you say I should go on 4chan and collect statistic on every possible meme (which is impossible!). And then you say that statistics about 4chan are invalid anyway. Amazing!

Semantics - See below on why you're out of line on this comment as well. Gpia7r ( talk) 19:28, 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)

You're grabbing at straws now. No one denied Pedobear's existence. Stay on topic. By your current logic, there needs to be inclusion of every other meme that exists and is proven to exist outside of 4chan. Gpia7r ( talk) 18:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

None of those sources actually mention 4chan. And I don't mean they don't mention it as Pedobear's birthplace. They don't mention it at all. -- King ÖÖmie III 18:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody on this board denies that Pedobear is a meme on 4chan. It is notable because it has appeared in a Pat Buchanan column with a picture of Obama. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 19:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Because that link isn't biased at all. Again, one person's opinion. Journalists will reach for whatever they can to make a "story", and if I photoshop a picture of your president with Courage Dog, and it gets posted on the internet, that doesn't make it notable. Gpia7r ( talk) 19:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is notable because a former Republican presidential candidate and syndicated columnist, for no apparent reason, posted an image of Obama with pedobear in a column. This was mentioned in Wonkette, whose related blog, Gawker, is cited in this Wikipedia entry. Someone named King maintains that this is proof of nothing because the Wonkette links don't mention 4chan, but it is a common sense fact that 4chan is the main "romping ground" for the pedobear meme. In any case, since I'm a journalist myself, I will just have to write a national article on Pedobear's presence on 4chan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV, Conflict of Interest, Original Research, and Self Referencing material. Gpia7r ( talk) 19:27, 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)

Great job on the out-of-context quote again. You're good at that. That line was referring directly to your comment: "You said: "Pedobear is posted in CP threads less than it's posted in any other thread, that's the point." Do YOU have proof for this?-Penneth", NOT the side-fact that 4chan is not a verifiable source. I simply wanted you, personally, to go there and watch and see how wrong you are. So, when you're done bringing back your weeklong data, please prove that most Pedobear images were shown in CP threads. Sources, citations, verifiable information, etc. You can provide none of that. Gpia7r ( talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"I simply wanted you, personally, to go there and watch and see how wrong you are." I went there today and it took me a minute to find a thread larded with Pedobear memes, porn, and gore. So how exactly did I find out how wrong I am? 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Gpia7r's request was rhetorical, and pointed out the absurdity of trying to source this. You're confusing cause and effect- it's impossible to assert cause and notability for pedobear, because it HASN'T BEEN SOURCED. We're not stopping you from attempting to legitimately add Pedobear to this article. We're stopping you from adding it in spite of wikipedia policy and the inclusion guidelines.

The real absurdity is in people demanding sources from 4chan, then ruling out 4chan as a source. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your statement that "nobody... denies that Pedobear is a meme on 4chan" is absurd. No reliable source is MAKING that assertion, thus, it doesn't belong on this page. You can't claim Common Sense because YOU know something. You can't just add <ref>"Trust me"</ref>

Wow, I'm accused of taking quotes out of context, and then with a clever ellipsis you take my quote out of context. The original quote read: "Nobody ON THIS BOARD denies that Pedobear is a meme on 4chan." There's nothing absurd about that statement. It is true. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Careful before you spout nonsense. I certainly hope you aren't claiming I said that. Gpia7r ( talk) 19:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the above quote was not signed as per the rules, and since it contains numerous caps locked sentences, which is your specialty, I did assume it was you. But I apologize if it wasn't. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 19:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

SineBot is getting tired of you, as well. Here's the truth: Pedobear is a meme, one of thousands. It's mere existence does not prove to be notable enough for inclusion, nor is it "mainstreaming internet pedophelia". Pedobear is posted in all types of 4chan threads, whether they be on /b/, /wg/, /k/, /a/, you name it. Unfortunately, 4chan is not a verifiable or reliable source to assertain any solid information on the cause, existence, or result of the Pedobear cartoon. The inclusion to the article is difficult because, while it's notability is suspect, doing so would set a precidence for including other memes that may carry even stronger "controversy". Can we at least agree on this? Gpia7r ( talk) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So Sinebot is "getting tired" or me. Is this the prelude to a ban? I will not agree with you about "precidence" [sic]. And the "mainstreaming Internet pedophilia" comment is moot because I never said such a thing in the Wikipedia article, where I merely stated that Pedobear is a popular meme on 4chan (true: it's in the official banner ads, unlike any other meme) and that it is posted in CP threads (true: you yourself agree). Also, I will reiterate my question to you, starting with a quote from you. "I simply wanted you, personally, to go there and watch and see how wrong you are." I went to 4chan today and it took me a minute to find a thread larded with Pedobear memes, porn, and gore. So how exactly did I find out how wrong I am? 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 19:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had to re-submit comments because of all of the times you didn't sign yours, and SineBot beat me. Stating that you mentioning the rule of signing comments is hypocritical.

You said it in your comments above, and it is false. You tried to reinforce your claim about Pedobear with "4chan is extremely popular worldwide, but no one wants to touch the fact that it basically is mainstreaming internet pedophilia." These are your words, and that is what I'm referring to. I said it's posted in CP threads, but you're again omitting the fact that I also said ANYTHING is posted in CP threads. I said numerous times that it is not exclusive to CP threads, nor is it the only thing posted. Pedobear does not equal CP thread, and CP thread does not equal Pedobear. There may have been CP threads that didn't have a single Pedobear image! You don't know this, I don't know this, it's absolutely unverifiable. Courage dog is posted in CP threads, we need to include an article about that, too. Oh, and every single other image ever that has been in a CP thread. Pedobear is a meme, meme's are in 4chan (and numerous other raunchy websites), so of course you're going to see them on 4chan. Want a medal or cookie or some sort of pat on the back? How does that make it worth including? Again, I ask, does that mean every other meme I see on 4chan should be included? Gpia7r ( talk) 19:52, 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's connection to 4chan is certainly common sense: http://img.4chan.org/b/res/152147823.html. It's all over that thread. The connection is elucidated on this website: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pedobear. Though you can dispute the credibility of the "Know Your Meme" itself, the information contained there is accurate. Pedobear is based on a Japanese bear called Kuma, a picture of which is available at the Know Your Meme link. (Kuma is also listed on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuma) Kuma began on the Japanese board 2chan. 4chan turned it into Pedobear. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 20:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"4chan turned it into Pedobear" - Cite, source, verify. No way to prove that at all. Could have been created at 2chan, ebaums, or some random guy in their basement. Gpia7r ( talk) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Do I need to prove that it originated on 4chan? Isn't it enough to show that it is a widely disseminated meme on 4chan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 20:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Pedobear is by far one of the most popular 4chan memes. Anyone who don't see this is blind. Also, it should be mentioned the vast amount of CP that is posted at midnight on B. -- 201.254.248.187 ( talk) 04:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

To 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)

So Know Your Meme isn't a viable source because it's user-generated, even though the information is accurate. And 4chan isn't legit either because... well, no one has explained that. But the continual and frequent posting of pedobear on 4chan, including in threads that I have documented, is not a common sense connection between 4chan and Pedobear. Makes sense, thanks. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Do I need to prove that it originated on 4chan? Isn't it enough to show that it is a widely disseminated meme on 4chan? "-Unsigned comment by Penneth

Nope, and no one is arguing that either! The fact that it's a meme is irrelevent, because it's only one meme out of thousands. As King says, your only go-to source isn't a valid source. Your intent to add this to the article is very strong - What's the reason? What are you trying to prove? If there was some actual informative and notable point to saying that Pedobear is a meme on 4chan (and other websites), without mentioning the hundreds and thousands of other memes... all of which can rear their ugly heads in some less than wonderous threads (CP, gore, porn, etc)... where's the notability there? Gpia7r ( talk) 20:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Pedobear is notable because it is a symbol of pedophilia and it is used in criminal child pornography threads on 4chan. No, the posting of Pedobear in such threads is not random, as I have demonstrated in the previously linked-to thread, where there were at least 18 pedobears mixed up with dismembered limbs, insect impregnation pornography, and cartoon child pornography. There were no other memes posted in that thread. After challenging me to go to 4chan in search of examples of pedobear's use, you dismissed this example and all but accused me of fabricating evidence (after having accused me of never visiting 4chan, a claim you never retracted or apologized for). In other words, you wanted evidence from 4chan; I gave it to you; you dismissed 4chan as a source of evidence. Your reasoning is twisted, your argumentation circular. (Pedobear is also notable because it has been reported on in Wonkette and other news blogs after an image of Pedobear inexplicably appeared next to Obama in a column by a former Republican presidential candidate and intellectual leader of the conservatives.) Why are the other memes, like lolcats, mentioned if they are but one of thousands? I would like an explanation on that score. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"it is a symbol of pedophilia and it is used in criminal child pornography threads" Cite this from a verifiable source.

"as I have demonstrated in the aforementioned linked-to thread" 4chan is not a reliable source. A single thread does not represent the past however many years of 4chan.

"accused me of fabricating evidence (after having accused me of never visiting 4chan, a claim you never retracted or apologized for)." Never accused. I said there's no evidence to state that you couldn't have done that. That is one of the million reasons 4chan is not a reliable source. It's anonymous and random.

"In other words, you wanted evidence from 4chan; I gave it to you" Also, stated earlier as impossible rhetoric, to enforce how 4chan is not a reliable source. Gpia7r ( talk) 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Why are the other memes, like lolcats, mentioned if they are but one of thousands? I would like an explanation on that score." lolcats aren't exclusive to 4chan either, but there are onrunning websites like icanhazcheezburger that constantly post lolcats in a non 4chan light. Gpia7r ( talk) 20:57, 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)

And until you find a reliable source to cite, on 4chan it will stay. You going out to 4chan and finding something, then reporting it here without a real source, is the DEFINITION of Original Research. Once again, over before it started. -- King ÖÖmie III 21:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's funny when people from 4chan, mostly /b/ users I'm sure come to wikipedia and want to add a bunch of stupid stuff only to be shut down. Go back to ED. Leviathanlover ( talk) 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that Pedobear is a meme on 4chan. It's common sense and common knowledge. 74.233.42.18 ( talk) 01:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You really have no idea how Wikipedia works. Shii (tock) 01:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

One more time, you can't claim 'common knowledge' for knowledge that MOST PEOPLE do not have. Unless you want to make the case that the majority of people on this planet frequent 4chan. We're not writing this article for us. -- King ÖÖmie III 12:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well what do you think of the below source connecting 4chan to pedobear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 18:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A short description of a stuffed animal, showing no sources or citations to even THEIR claims. Yep, sounds reliable and iron-clad. The misspellings in the article make it even more reliable. Gpia7r ( talk) 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You can characterize it however you like, but in that link Pedobear is called a 4chan meme. There are no misspellings to my eye. Or are you objecting to the two Ls in Lolli and the use of an ellipsis and an "er"? None are incorrect, by the way. For the sake of other users, I will repost the entire text here. Gpia will helpfully point out the misspellings: "DO WANT! I can’t believe someone made a stuffed animal based on Pedobear, the lolli-loving 4chan meme, but they did and it’s the greatest meme merchandise since the 3 Wolf Moon shirt. Give this to a child you… er, on second thought, keep this far away from children. Far away! They are to Pedobear what Winnie the Pooh is to honey, and try not to read into that analogy too deeply. For more Pedobear, check out this recent CollegeHumor video starring the lovable, creepy ol’ bear in an Academy Award nominated movie. Pedobear earns our 'seal of approval,' as long as he stays away from playgrounds and middle school science fairs." I have discussed this issue long and hard with the pedants here. I'm going to craft a few sentences, though nothing substantive (yet), about Pedobear and insert them into the article. I will lay out the sentences in here first, and post them tomorrow. Since this article includes citations of such notable scientific journals as "Gawker," I do believe this link is up to snuff as well. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 19:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They can call it a 4chan meme all they want, but what about that advertisement makes it true? It holds just as much weight as your claims, which have all been baseless and without a solid, verifiable, or reliable source. Keep digging. Gpia7r ( talk) 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream on. This is going up. Sincerely yours, 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be not considering what I said. That advertisement is not a reliable or verifiable source. Please address this without rehashing what you've said 11 times now about how you personally feel and believe it is. You need a solid source, you've yet to provide one. Gpia7r ( talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not an advertisement. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It's rich of you to call my claims baseless when you don't actually disagree with any of them (ie, pedobear is a 4chan meme). -Penneth

Also note that it is currently your single opinion vs the opinion of a number of editors here. You have failed to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia in your claims, and you still insist on posting information that is not verifiable or reliable. Take caution in what you are doing, for it WILL be reverted, and you will likely throw a fit and bring up the 3RR again. It is a description of a stuffed animal, and the author is making baseless claims just as you are. Pedobear is an Internet Meme. Gpia7r ( talk) 19:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So, as you have admitted, is every meme cited in the article. They're all "Internet Memes" that are found circulating on numberless boards. You can keep calling the information unverifiable or unreliable, but that doesn't negate the source. That source you have mischaracterized as an advertisement (it is NOT an advertisement); incidentally, you have YET to ennumerate the alleged misspellings in it, which makes me laugh coldly. As for the opinions of editors - first, facts are not determined by majority rule, and second, you are the only one (are you an editor?) who has ruled out this source. Others may follow, but this is how it stands now. I reiterate: a reference to Pedobear will be posted in here, then posted in the article tomorrow. You know what you can do with your exhortation to "take caution." (You would make a fabulous operative in a police state.) 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 19:51, 12 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)

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT IT'S AN ADVERTISEMENT? No. It's a blog entry associated with comedy.com and it makes mention, not only of the stuffed animal, but also of a video about Pedobear. The video is actually the showcase of the blog entry. Your snivelling about the sexualitzation of children is pure strawman. My intention is simply to state that Pedobear is a 4chan meme (with source), and that it was recently strangely glued to an image of Obama and put in a column by former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. I'm going to figure out how to take this debate further up the Wikipedia chain. I'm tired of dealing with czars who like to rule imperiously over little boards. I'm a journalist who deals with editors on a weekly basis, and this is atrocious. Sincerely yours, 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope that, as a "journalist" ^{citation needed}, you don't send out your articles without spellchecking and grammar checking. I find it hard to believe, simply from what you've written so far. I think you're trying to add weight to a high-school journalism class to help you with your argument. Gpia7r ( talk) 20:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are the misspellings in the source? That's all I want to know. (Psst, spellchecking? That's two words, my friend.) 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"sexualitzation", "Buchanana", etc etc. I've never seen so many post-comment changes made. So, I'm commenting on your personal "journalism" skills, and your obvious lack of review before submitting. Back on topic - What makes that article's claim that it is a 4chan meme a verifiable piece of information? Do you know the person that posted that blog entry, and if they somehow were involved in the upbringing of 4chan and over the "Meme Creation Department"? Gpia7r ( talk) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your impugning of my journalism is extremely insignificant to me. On topic: I don't know the person who wrote that blog entry, and I'm almost certain they weren't involved in the creation of 4chan and its innumerable memes. All of this is highly irrelevant. As you acknowledged further up, I don't have to prove that pedobear originated on 4chan - only that it circulates as a meme on 4chan. So states the source - which I notice you're no longer calling an advertisement. Where are the misspellings in there, anyway? Do "spellcheck" it for me. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 21:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Added a Third-Opinion request on the main page, which is sad because there have been far more than that against your claims... and apparently 6 opposing opinions aren't enough. Gpia7r ( talk) 20:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's STRAWMAN?

Pedobear is notable because it is a symbol of pedophilia and it is used in criminal child pornography threads on 4chan.

You've yet to provide a source making that assertion. And by the way, blogs are not reliable sources. -- King ÖÖmie III 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Pedobear is a symbol, joking, ironic or whatever, of pedophilia is self-evident: pedobear is a pedophile. The fact that Pedobear is posted in child pornography threads has been affirmed by none other than my loudest opponent, Gpia. I am not here to prove that Pedobear is posted in CP threads, however, since you guys have already asserted that 4chan threads are invalid sources. (Let the record show that I have furnished this board with a link to a /b/ thread in which 18 pedobears were posted alonside cartoon child porn, insect impregnation porn, and hard-core gore. Screenshots can be provided.) So I am limiting myself to proving what is well-known anyway: that pedobear is a meme on 4chan. It is true that blog entries are often not considered reliable sources. But there is an exception for blogs if they are employers - in other words, if the writers for those blogs get paid, and if those writers are well-versed in their field. The blog entry I cited was published through comedy.com, which employs columnists and has an HQ in Los Angeles. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 21:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This has all been said, and debunked. You can say "Pedobear is posted in CP threads" all you want, and absolutely disregard why that is irrelevent... but the fact still stands. It is an image, and thousands of images per day are posted in threads, be they CP or not. Stop forgetting about that. Gpia7r ( talk) 22:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I said above in plain words, and I'll say again, that I am not seeking to prove Pedobear is posted in CP threads (though I am not wrong about that). What I'm trying to prove is that Pedobear is a meme on 4chan. I will report that in the article based on a reliable source. You say the source isn't reliable because it's a blog entry? The blog is an employer with a professional staff and therefore it meets Wikipedia's reliability requirements. End of story. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That is where your (Penneth's) argument started, and that is where it is finished. Be sure to read back up on the past 15 pages of this debate if you've forgotten why that is an invalid claim. Gpia7r ( talk) 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are the misspellings in the source? 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 21:17, 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)

wow, and to think this started with my little comment...I still dont think that we have got sourced information that can justify adding too much about the pedobear meme here, but i admit this video is a start. I dont think its enough yet, but if this video becomes a meme itself, say if its slashdotted, or if this conversation is slashdotted (slashdot beware of us, we may try to get slashdotted just to justify the inclusion of a single sentence in the article. oh no, im being sucked into a recursive vortex, pedobear save me...oh, i just realized, the entire universe is a system of recursivity with no original, verifiable source). perhaps we should all just take a page from Robert Anton Wilson, who didnt believe ANYTHING, and wanted to ban the word IS (which would pretty much make WP untenable). or maybe Kurt Gödel can help, but i doubt it. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:09, 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.html 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 21:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I should be more precise. The little girl isn't offering to take off her clothes. She's offering to do whatever /b/ wants. And what nice suggestions she's getting: "paint a rainbow," "show asshole," "full frontal nude," "sharpie in pooper," "fist fuck," "cut neck," "shit in bed then eat it." 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 21:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and: "show your dick and balls" posted with a picture of Pedobear panting and drooling.

The thread has been up for 27 minutes now. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The thread just expired - after 40 minutes. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not verifiable. Most of what is posted on /b/ is old content being reused. We've already been over the fact that /b/ isn't a clean place, stop rehashing what's been said. Gpia7r ( talk) 22:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is what's verifable about that thread, which I have saved in its near entirety. There was a picture of a little girl, around 8 years old, inviting users to ask her to do something. Beneath the picture of the little girl were three postings of pedobear: one of a real-life pedobear getting a simulated blowjob from a boy while a class of kindergarteners looked on; one of pedobear scrunching up his face in frustration at the fact that the picture of the little girl may have been recycled from an earlier thread (copy pasta); and one of pedobear panting and drooling. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll use this space to ask again, where are the spelling errors in my source? 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you fail to address what I've said, and can't get off the spelling topic - I take that as you've run out of ammo. Lolicon, one L, not two. Debate over, see below for the kind administrator's input. Gpia7r ( talk) 22:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Lolicon isn't even the word used in the article. But even granted one misspelling, does that officially disqualify source? POINT ME TO THE RULE MANDATING IT DOES. 68.153.199.181 ( talk) 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's really not about rules at all. It's about people - free agents all of us - working it out. Let's just work it out. We don't have to go back-and-forth; there's a whole Wiki. Just go find consensus, and then go with it, whatever it ends up saying. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 22:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)