Talk:Pepe the Frog

Shadilay?

How the hell is there zero mention of this song, neither in the article itself nor the discussion? Normies get out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.39.139 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Pepe the frog → Pepe the Frog – The "F" in Frog is capitalized in most sources, and is the generally accepted name for the meme (see [1], [2], [3], etc. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 04:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see this move request as contentious, so you could just go right ahead. There may be an issue since it is on the Main Page right now and would need a sysop to change the DYK template's hook to suit. Jolly Ω Janner 04:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The page move tool wouldn't allow me to move the page, so I requested it here. Not sure if it's because of it being listed on the Main Page. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 15:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's because Pepe the Frog already exists as a redirect (and has an abundant edit hitory). We will have to wait for sysop. Jolly Ω Janner 17:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I've listed this at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, as there is a backlog tag at WP:requested moves. Jolly Ω Janner 21:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support, as speedy WP:CAPS In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protection

I've requested this page for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection due to persistent IP vandalism. With such a short article that is documented almost as well as it can be with the available sources, I don't see how this could prevent its future development. Edit requests and discussions are always welcome on the talk page. Jolly Ω Janner 05:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No mention of white supremacy?

All major networks and anti-racism organizations have acknowledged that Pepe the Frog is a White Nationalist Symbol. Southern Poverty Law Center has also recognized Pepe the Frog as a white supremacist meme. Source - http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-adviser-son-post-image-trump-s-deplorables-featuring-white-n646431

Please include these details in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.98.129 (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The simple fact that Pepe was around long before it was "officially" labeled a symbol of white supremacy by 2 news sources proves that it was never a racist white nationalist symbol to begin with. I suggest that those sources are not only invalid to use, but the proof that the symbolism itself seen over the years proves it makes fun of all sides of the political spectrum and doesn't stand with one side or another since its inception in 2005 as a comic that was originally never intended to BE political.

• http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-the-frog
• http://www.techinsider.io/this-guy-created-one-of-the-most-famous-memes-heres-why-hes-kinda-pissed-off-2015-7
• http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/4chan-pepe-the-frog-renaissance/

73.249.237.57 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Jim Russ

That is ridiculous. The simple fact that existed before doesn't mean it has not been appropriated. The links need included and selectively including clinton's website and saying she is the one "insinuating" is clearly false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMint (talk • contribs) 06:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with DrMint. The fact that Pepe did not BEGIN as a symbol (meme) used by the Alt-Right and White Nationalist groups, has nothing to do with the reality that the Pepe character has BECOME associated with these movements as well as their preferred presidential candidate Donald Trump (online in places like 4chan) by their own absconding with the character; which according to the Daily Beast article began in 2015. As a meme Pepe has been used in a variety of contexts. The fact that its present (though not exclusive) association with the alt-right and white nationalists has become a notable issue of the 2016 presidential campaign makes its mention on this wiki-page appropriate and necessary. The previous edit (as of this comment) stating "Hillary Clinton has tried to insinuate..." is entirely inaccurate. It's not Hillary Clinton, it's her campaign along with news sources which had noted this connection of Pepe with the alt-right back in May. There has not been any 'insinuation' or 'trying'. There has been explicit (and accurate) accusations that Pepe the Frog is a mascot for the alt-right white nationalist movements, and that some close to the Donald Trump campaign have re-tweeted a meme (The Deplorables) which includes Donald Trump and Pepe the Frog, along with notable personalities of the Alt-Right movement. It's hard to deny the connection given this evidence. As to the final part of the edit ("based on an anonymous teenager claiming to be a white supremacist"), there is no citation of this particular claim. GP323 (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't let CTR vandalize wikipedia with their branding efforts. Everyone knows Pepe the frog has been around for years and has nothing to do with nazi-ism or white supremacy. 104.174.78.53 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree, Hillary Clinton's own campaign made up the white supremacist narrative and fed it to their liberal media friends who a high percentage are contributors to her campaign and have an obvious bias. Therefore it is not unbiased or neutral to link to bogus stories that Clinton's team invented. This is a cartoon frog and a joke, people, and the biased part of white supremacy will be removed so it's fair to all. --Cheap-stock-photos (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

GP323 the claims and the fact that Trump staffers have retweeted the image does not mean it's considered a white supremacy symbol or alt right symbol for that matter. It was never appropriated or even acknowledged by anyone on the right as being a symbol of white supremacy. Pepe, as the links I've provided has ALWAYS been random. The fact that Hillary decided it was considered a symbol of the Alt Right and White Supremacy does not make it fact. The fact that a Trump staffer retweeted an image of Pepe doesn't automatically put it as being an Alt Right symbol. There is no Alt Right symbol. To try and force the appropriation of Pepe as being that symbol is no longer using truth or the facts of what Pepe is about, its turning the cartoon into a piece of anti Alt Right propaganda, something that is strictly forbidden on a page that requires facts and sources of those facts, ones I've provided describing how Pepe came to be, what Pepe means etc. I therefore vote to either modify the current connection to White Supremacy/Alt Right movements as pure speculation or allegations and not a fact that the section or sentence so makes it out to be. Aside from the statements by the Clinton campaign and a couple news sources, that does not make it as fact. Mere speculation perhaps. This is not a page to push your political views and opinions, and these alleged connections are just that. 73.249.237.57 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Jim Russ

Hello guys, I believe many of you may be new here and not familiar with Wikipedia's policies. I will quote from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy which says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

There have been many sources describing Pepe's association with Trump, nationalism (different than "white supremacy"), and the alt-right, before the SPLC and Hillary Clinton recently said stuff about Pepe and "white supremacy"[4] [5] that's why I added it to the article. There are even sources that describe it as a "symbol" for each of them. The NBC article says "Prominently featured over Trump's right shoulder: popular white nationalist symbol, Pepe the Frog." while the SPLC says "Pepe the Frog is a huge favorite white supremacist meme" and that seems to be have by other sources that reported on the article who also called it that. There's no statement in that article that clearly links "white supremacy" to Pepe besides from SPLC. For Hillary it currently just says that she was one prominent person who "criticized its usage", we can't and shouldn't include quotes of what everyone says. That's why "white supremacy" is not mentioned, I understand your objections to that. If it escalates, like they call it a "hate symbol" or something like that then it will probably get a ton of coverage and it then something like "The SPLC designated Pepe as a white supremacists hate symbol." will get added.

And I promise you that I'm not part of CTR, I've been watching this page before Hillary's alt-right speech. The article currently mentions "Pepe" being yelled during her speech, mentions criticism, associations, Matt Furie's comments, etc. Doesn't seem to be "pro" or "anti" anything. ZN3ukct (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to start citing articles claiming Pepe is one thing or another, then you must also cite articles that say it is not a symbol of white nationalism. Your "citation" #3 isn't even from the creator of the image itself. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/feels-good-man is a more reliable source for internet phenomena than DailyBeast, a known left-leaning editorial blog. Either you strike all mention of political affiliation, which is the best course of action because 1) it was never a political symbol and 2) even if it was appropriated to one, you must make this distinction (like the Swastika article does) because claiming that it first showed up on white-nationalist websites is just 100% false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:D641:C00:94DA:C165:9DE6:6B3B (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not add that claim. There were sources calling it a "symbol" for certain things before the Hillary and NBC articles happened. ZN3ukct (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia's policy to say (rephrase) what reliable sources say (rather than saying what the Wikipedia-contributor believes)? And isn't VANITY FAIR a reliable source? Well, VF says Pepe is now a White Nationalist symbol. I have added a sentence summarizing what VF said about Pepe, with a reference to VF. As far as I can see, the only possible justifications for removing this sentence would be, if you claimed that VF is not a reliable source (which would be ridiculous) or if you claimed that VF didn't say that Pepe is a white-nationalist symbol (which VF clearly DOES say) or if you claimed that this is not a "notable use" of Pepe (also ridiculous). Furthermore, there's no dispute that former KKK leader David Duke (now running for Senate from Louisiana) has tweeted Pepe coupled with a White Supremacist slogan. If this is not a "notable use", then the word "notable" has no meaning. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: The Washington Post also says Pepe has come to be associated with White Nationalism. Does anyone out there seriously want to try to claim that WP is not a reliable source??? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that claim is too extreme. Most of the American/European media should not be considered very reliable sources during a high-stakes election year on matters pertaining to the US presidential election. Right now the entire field, left and right, is skewed with bias to the point where you're little better off citing the National Enquirer. 2604:2000:2ACF:EB00:5DB2:D4C6:EBAE:E7B4 (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2016

Delete the mention of comparing "Pepe the Frog" with "white nationalism", as the meme has no relation to that movement. Sources given (DailyBeast, NBC) are not reliable sources. Hazard (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, In the notable uses sectin immediately below the 'white nationalist' mention, it states that Katy Perry, Niki Minaj, and the Nation of New Zealand have all been associated with Pepe, this is a broad spectrum of persons to associate with white nationalism. Please remove these references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58C:4302:8609:431:4A5F:D734:288B (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Beast source quotes a PARODY account on twitter. Completely unreliable. -70.162.247.233 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. clpo13_(talk) 23:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hate symbol

Just saw at least two reliable sources refer to using Pepe the Frog as symbol of support for alt right and/or white nationalist hate causes. Hardball with Chris Matthews (2016-09-12); NBC News refers to it as a "popular white nationalist symbol". In the NBC news story, Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center is given as the primary source. Previous RFCs have established the SPLC has wide support in secondary sources as an authority on hate groups and hate speech. We should probably include this information in the article. Apologies in advance, but I don't have the time to grind out a consensus version, so just leaving this trail of crumbs for others. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This speculation is so hopelessly wrong and so obviously so that it almost renders it nothing shy of a conspiracy theory. By the same token, if NBC were to report on its use by self proclaimed communists and declare it to be associated with Karl Marx and the new left, would we include it? 50.133.158.65 (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

RE: "This speculation is so hopelessly wrong and so obviously so that it almost renders it nothing shy of a conspiracy theory. By the same token, if NBC were to report on its use by self proclaimed communists and declare it to be associated with Karl Marx and the new left, would we include it?" Yes, we would. Wiki contributors are not supposed to decide for themselves what is true or false; Wikipedia reports whatever is said by reliable sources. NBC is a mainstream, reliable source. If NBC were to report that Pepe is a symbol of invaders from Mars, or a symbol of crab-people from underground, Wikipedia would report that too. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

>implying the SPLC or NBC ever had "credibility" with anyone other than leftist wackadoos who are more concerned about conspiracy theories involving a cartoon frog than they are about four American citizens who died in Benghazi

>implying all of this isn't hilarious

>implying implications

Can't stop the signal.

The article should make it clear that it was associated with Trumps campaign, and then Hillary and CTR chose to associate it with White nationalism using MSNBC and CNN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.127.223 (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the article should include mentions of the controversy because the meme is being aired on several news outlets as a white nationalist symbol. That means that the nature of the meme is changing as we speak, because that's how memes work. They are what you think. The story should be included however NBC's and other outlets claims should not be taken as gospel. I've added some rebuttals to their claims, as well as fleshed out their own arguments. Please feel free to add to the rebuttal or otherwise. Just don't delete it. Its stupid not to include it because this episode will undoubtedly change the nature of Pepe. Moiz Rafay (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be edited in a way where the claims are nothing more than allegations or speculations and not mere facts. The way the page originally had it was that it was a definite symbol of the alt right and white nationalism. That's why there should be an allegedly or supposedly added in that area to make the people decide for themselves whether its considered alt-right or a symbol of white supremacy in any way, not what the media tells them or any political campaign/movement tells them. 73.249.237.57 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Jim Russ

It's a hate symbol alright, but I wonder who are the real haters? Besides Pepe the Frog, other listed symbols of alt-right, white supremacy, neo nazis, Aryan Nations, etc., have been identified as:

• Doc Martens boots
• Shaved head
• Suspenders

Some people look for symbols to justify their own social justice outrage; that is a dangerous form of hate directed at symbols that mean diffrent things to diffrent people. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ Naaman. You have no proof that it is definitely a hate symbol. How many groups have used Pepe as their own symbol besides 4chan? Aside from they, other people and sites including the likes of Reddit have used Pepe for years with no regard to any political affiliations. The Alt-Right can claim it as theirs, but as it was stated by the creator, its a meme for everybody. And to also comment on your list of white supremacist hate symbols, are you forgetting that the skinhead culture was never a neo Nazi movement to begin with? Nor is it still that, but people simply assumed that is what the skinhead culture is about. Are you saying that because the traditional skinheads have been overlooked, that skinhead culture now only relates to Neo Nazism? If so then why even discuss history anymore if assimilation matters more than historic facts? Either way, this whole idea that Pepe is hate symbolism is on the levels of "South Park" absurdity. The mere fact that somehow an internet meme has so much impact in the current election cycle is just shocking and unbelievable to say the least. Its only because of Ms. Elizabeth Chan bringing the matter up on the Clinton website that its becoming a mainstream issue without any fact checking behind the claims. Matter of fact, none of the claims for that matter are actual facts. Some images that some have altered of Pepe in Nazi getup is a mere small percentage of what the majority of Pepe memes are about. Objectivity is key here and to only see the small percentage of something that is overwhelmed by a majorly innocent meme is not objectivity, its digging and is subjective in nature. 73.249.237.57 (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Jim Russ

I am saying Pepe is a hate symbol to people who love to hate hate. Pepe will remain so no matter what. Yes, indeed, our politicians and "journalists" are on the level of South Park absurdity. I am old enough to remember the Senate hearings and media coverage of the crusade against comic books; we are ruled by and lectured to by idiots who discover things, misunderstand them and proceed to lecture and legislate based on their new-found (mis)understanding. The hate haters have adopted Pepe as a clue to look for so their clique can know who to hate and shun. You can be a full-fledged SHARP (Skinhead Against Racial Prejudice) and they'll hate you as a racist based on published watchlist clues (boots, no hair, suspenders, etc.). -- Naaman Brown (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016

Pepe the frog is just a meme, has nothing to do with white supremacy

205.197.253.179 (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, please read my comment below. ZN3ukct (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016

Pepe the Frog has been closely associated with the alt-right movement. Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart news has made comments indicating that Pepe is sort of like a mascot for the alt-right and the character is seen in multiple pictures and is mentioned multiple times in Yiannopoulos' March 2016 article entitled "An Establishment Conservative's Guide to the Alt Right". http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

Totoroko (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Dude, what in the heck are you talking about? Pepe is an almost decade long meme used from 4chan to Nicki Minaj. Just because Clinton's campaign made a couple of hilarious claims doesn't make it fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.241.215 (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Apparantly it does now because the page is locked! Good job, impartial Wikipedia editors. 46.39.230.198 (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello guys, please see my comment below. The page has been locked since February due to vandalism. ZN3ukct (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In Yiannopoulos' article, he draws a clear distinction between the alt-right and the "real racists and bigots" i.e. the "1488rs". The article may connect Pepe with Yiannopoulos' idea of the alt-right, but cannot not be used to connect Pepe with white supremacy. Which is not to say its not connected. PAR (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump, white nationalism, the alt-right and Pepe

I've been watching and reviewing changes to this page for about a month now. The association with the the Donald Trump campaign, white nationalism, and the alt-right has many sources to back it up. Coincidentally, "symbol" has been used for all three. So that's why I'm going put back "In 2016, Pepe became associated with Donald Trump's presidential campaign, white nationalism and the alt-right movement." (I did not originally add that by the way.) and add in "It has been described as a symbol for each of them." Associated means "(Of a person or thing) connected with something else" according to Oxford dictionary.[6] And being described as a symbol of something is a connection to that something.

• [7] (The "Pepe The Frog" cartoon has become an especially popular symbol for Trump.)
• [8] (Pepe the Frog, an internet meme, has become a symbol of the alt-right.)
• [9] (Pepe was effectively adopted by the alt-right and 4chan users (an online bulletin board where users post comments and images anonymously).)
• [10] (The alt-right is a group largely known for their vehement anti-liberal stance, often incorporating white nationalism and is often associated with outlets like Breitbart and Alex Jones’ InfoWars – as well as the Pepe the Frog meme for reasons unknown, other than its off-putting nature.)
• [11] (On Thursday, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton gave a speech denouncing the alt-right, a movement mostly composed of young white nationalists from online. As Clinton introduced the concept to her audience, a cry rang out from somewhere in the crowd: "Pepe!")

I don't think anyone is denying the Trump or alt-right association. Here are some sources for white nationalism, and it's not just NBC and the SPLC.

• [12] (Without Trump, the alt-right is just David Duke with Pepe the Frog memes.) **David Duke's Wikipedia page says "This article is about the white nationalist. For the Scottish football player, see David Duke (footballer)."**
• [13] (Pepe the Frog, a once-innocuous meme spawned from 4chan, has been reinvented as a favorite racist meme of the alt-right. The Daily Beast reported that a group on 4chan launched an effort this year to save Pepe from mainstream death. 4chan's anecdote? Revive Pepe as a white nationalist icon. They were largely successful. **Goes on to quote from Olivia Nuzzi's article on Pepe. Many other sources have quoted from or linked to her article. [14] [Washington Post] [15] [New York Times]**)
• [16] (After all, Sunday morning, before Clinton fell over, Donald Trump, Jr. posted to Instagram a “Deplorable” mock-up of “The Expendables” movie poster (tweeted by Trump longtime adviser Roger Stone the night before) with Pepe the Frog, the winking symbol of white nationalism, right next to Donald Trump.)
• [17] (A white nationalist symbol has made its way into the latest back and forth in the 2016 presidential campaign... Prominently featured over Trump's right shoulder: popular white nationalist symbol, Pepe the Frog. "Pepe the Frog is a huge favorite white supremacist meme," Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center told NBC News of the meme. While Pepe the Frog may not be a household name, the meme is known to members of the alt-right on the internet. "It's constantly used in those circles," Beirich said. "The white nationalists are gonna love this because they're gonna feel like 'yeah we're in there with Trump, there's Pepe the Frog.'")

So there's Politico and NBC that describe it as a "white nationalist symbol". Beirich from the SPLC called it a "white supremacist meme", that was reported in NBC, and that seems to have been picked by other sources [18] [19], but NBC did not call it that and that's not what I'm adding. There is a difference between "Trump Adviser, Son Post Image of Trump's 'Deplorables' Featuring White Nationalist Symbol" and "Donald Trump Jr. Shares White Supremacist Meme". Also, since Nuzzi's Pepe article is linked to a lot (WP and NYT) and it seems to have relevant information, I will keep it as a reference and try to add relevant information from it and other sources later. ZN3ukct (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Pepe is grinning from ear-to-ear seeing the mainstream media fumble around trying to put a label on who he is and what he represents. Will probably go down as one of the most successful trolls in Internet history. Of course, no "reliable" sources on THAT, yet. TweedVest (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

These links show a number of journalists who went to 4chan looking for white supremacists, found them posting Pepe, and went away without looking at the rest of 4chan - which is also posting Pepe daily (a simple search of apolitical chan boards will show this to the casual observer). Mracidglee (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So my sources are being completely ignored in favor of how the Mainstream media is spinning it into speculatory views and allegations and not mere facts that the meme is not an alt right symbol? Sorry I'm seeing this as being pushed as propaganda and nothing to do with facts. The media is reaching very far into making it into that spin of it being a racist symbol. If you so wish, see my post above in the Protection section. Before this became a matter of it being "appropriated" as an alt right symbol, it was and still IS a symbol of just internet randomness. Nothing more. We're here to provide a factual definition of what Pepe is about, news sources are not using facts. Just pure speculation and guesses. 73.249.237.57 (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Jim Russ

Look at it this way, IP, when the media and one of the candidates for president start obsessing over a cartoon frog, then it means that 4Chan and the meme's other creators were successful in their troll. One of the main purposes of trolling is to elicit a disproportionate emotional response from its target(s). Looks like 4Chan was successful and, from what I've heard of those youngsters, they're probably laughing their keisters off. I predict that, in addition to Clinton's staff office, those networks are going to start receiving hundreds of mailed envelopes containing pictures of a smiling Pepe. Anyway, I think this article is actually, currently written fairly neutrally. TweedVest (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Revert to [20]

"Controversy" section

I have removed this section because of sourcing issues and because it puts too much focus on the "controversial" aspect without adding that much new information.

• Various internet communities have reacted with disbelief at Clinton's and journalist claims, with posts mocking the association reaching reddit's front page and the top of communities such as /r/cringe, /r/outoftheloop, /r/politics, /r/the_donald and /r/4chan[18].

Sourced to Know Your Meme which is like a wiki for memes, not a wp:reliable source

• Meanwhile, media outlets such as the Daily Beast published an article "Pepe the Frog is not a Nazi, no matter what the alt-right says,”[19]

That's not the Daily Beast, the Nuzzi Pepe article which is from the DB describes how they "basically mixed Pepe in with Nazi propaganda, etc.", I'll change "Nazi propaganda" to "Nazi Imagrey"

• stating that “Pepe lacks political affiliation"

That's correct, the article says that it is "associated" with certain things, there's a difference.[21]

• and that indeed, Pepe-themed likenesses of Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton herself and various other celebrities and politicians have circulated on the internet.

those don't have individual articles talking about them, we can't list all of them.

• Matt Furie, its creator is quoted as saying "Pepe beongs to all people."[19]

He already has a full sentence about his opinion on its usage. The article already describes its usage across many sites and different people.

• Various media outlets have acknowledged the meme's intense popularity[20][21]

That's why many articles exists.

• and others noting that Pepe has been popular and widespread enough that even celebrities such as Katy Perry and Nicki Minaj also used it with their followers, as well as reporters from Buzzfeed.

Katy Perry's and Nicki Minaj's usage is already noted below that ZN3ukct (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This is insanity. --24.87.131.200 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not the Daily Beast, the Nuzzi Pepe article which is from the DB describes how they "basically mixed Pepe in with Nazi propaganda, etc.", I'll change "Nazi propaganda" to "Nazi Imagrey"

Nice dodge there. It's the Daily Dot, not DB, rather than correct the wording to Daily Dot, you throw the whole thing out? An article from a reliable source directly countering the claims made by the DB article. You should reconsider. The title of the article is "Pepe the Frog is not a Nazi, no matter what the alt-right says", that is about as obviously related to this issue as you can get. 192.55.54.44 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

They linked to it. It describes Nazi imagery being used in Pepe memes, they didn't deny that happening ZN3ukct (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Will Ebola-chan and Harambe be regarded as white supremacy symbols ? Both are used as memes by the same ilk. --Killuminator (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Use of a symbol or meme does not necessarily indicate ownership. The article in its present state does not imply that white supremacists own Pepe, merely that they use it for their own ends. clpo13_(talk) 23:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I never said they own them. I said they use them and the manner in which they use them. --Killuminator (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, but a lot of other people on this talk page have objected that even mentioning alt-right use of Pepe is like saying Pepe is an alt-right symbol. They're not the same thing. Sorry for the confusion. clpo13_(talk) 00:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The alt-right using the symbol deserves a mention indeed. The approach of some editors baffles me tho. The guy whose edit you just reverted, had this sentence : Pepe the Frog was created by American artist Matt Furie as a meme expressing White Supremacy. As a reader, I get the impression that Pepe was created as a mean of expressing White supremacy. An absurd notion, Pepe was around before the Trump campaign and is often used to depict exhaustion, sadness and disappointment. There is a recent interview with the creator. Also, putting it in the same basket as actual supremacy symbols is also absurd. Seeing how this page is going in a bellic direction, I wish the editors good luck. Hopefully a prudent solution can be found. --Killuminator (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As per this link which contains an interview with Pepe's creator, Pepe is not, and was not created as a symbol of racism. It is incorrect to say that Pepe originated as a White Supremacy meme. 155blue (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Or you could stop being a dishonest shit, and remove your head from your ass? This may very well be the dumbest narrative this site has ever tried to sell as fact. "Reliable sources", yeah right. If your source is citing random, anonymous people the found somewhere on the internet, it's not a reliable source. That's pretty self-evident.134.147.247.12 (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please keep it wp:civil. ZN3ukct (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Beast Article that Hillary Clinton cites on her campaign page, the same article this page cited two days ago, has been debunked in articles by Daily Caller, Free Republic, and Breitbart. The person who the Clinton campaign cited as a "prominent white supremacist" explained in these interviews with conservative media that his interview with Daily Beast was done on a lark, and that he got great LULZ seeing the Democratic Presidential nominee taken for a fool so easily. Also, I don't go to websites like Stormfront, so I don't know if they use pepe there. I assume they might because it's a common reaction image. I'm sure many other reaction images such as rage faces get used there as well. That doesn't mean they freaking own it. 107.129.181.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

remove the leading description of pepe the frog as a symbol for white supremacy. The claim is unverified and a false narrative of the popular usage created by the clinton campaign. even if wikipedia is clintons support the content should reflect reality not supporting campaignlies. See http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-the-frog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss_M9MQUYWE

http://www.vice.com/read/feels-good-man-728

90.225.21.117 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Already removed at :21 with this edit. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It's fine to put in its alleged association with the alt-right/white-nationalist groups somewhere in the body because that is important, but that shouldn't be the first sentence in every paragraph in the article because that's clearly biased Wiki'ing.2605:A000:D641:C00:94DA:C165:9DE6:6B3B (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"created by Matt Furie as a meme expressing White Supremacy" BS - Wikipedia editors confirmed for retroactively fabricating lies, the original Pepe comics had no connection to White Supremacy at all. No source can confirm this and yet the lie still remains on the page. Get it together. 207.164.201.74 (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It was restored (looks like accidentally through a mish-mash of edits) since my message. I've removed it again. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Full protection

I have applied full protection to this page due to the persistent edit-warring: some of the editors are also flirting with edit-warring blocks at this moment. This protection is not an endorsement or comment of any kind on the page as it currently stands. Please use the interval to reach a consensus on the talk page. Vanamonde (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Could you revert the unexplained removal of content that occurred just before you protected it? Also, the big protection banner across the top may come in handy (as shown here (page has since been deleted, I don't know if it's view-able by admins or not)). Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, can you add back the creator of Pepe's responses? Here is another interview with him on The Atlantic. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Finally, Reactions towards Hillary Clinton's response to the meme were featured on the page prior to revisions, such as this edit. Not included on this page is an article published on The Daily Dot called Clinton campaign releases official statement on Pepe meme. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@both: as the protecting admin, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to get into the content dispute. Yes, that removal was unexplained, but it was accompanied by changes and additions that do not appear to be vandalism, or constitute BLP or copyright violations, that would justify my reverting it on sight. Likewise it is not likely to be an uncontroversial change. Therefore, I would much prefer it if you set about obtaining consensus for that change here: if it truly is only one user opposing it, and if their arguments are not founded in policy, that should become amply clear through discussion. You can then re-add the content once protection has expired (a week is not that long, nor is there any deadline); and if consensus is established before that, you can ping me or use the "edit-protected" template. Vanamonde (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I know this is a minor suggestion, but it would be more fair to use the word "claiming" in the last sentence of the history section, to reflect the fact that any links between Pepe and White Nationalism are highly contested. 155blue (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not a fan of using the term "claim" under virtually any circumstance, as per WP:CLAIM. "stated" is a bald presentation of fact: the campaign said that, and that's undeniable. If the claim has been questioned, then we say that, too; but unless the "claim" is something demonstrably contradicted by most reliable sources, we shouldn't call it a claim, in my view. Of course, this is just me: if you establish consensus for calling it a "claim," fine. Vanamonde (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Notifying all editors of the article from September 13 until it got fully protected. @Rossbawse, Leebenp, Geni, FL or Atlanta, Yoshiman6464, Porphyro, 155blue, Moiz Rafay, Iam16bit, Neptune's Trident, Zaostao, Kyleshome, Harej, Jfhutson, Klanackle, RunnyAmiga, Solntsa90, Greggg230, Masschaos777, Neutrality, Wikinium, Clpo13, SuperHamster, Killuminator, Jim1138, and Anarchyte: Anyone still interested in this article? Thoughts on my proposed changes below? ZN3ukct (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There's way too much weight given to this. It's a passing news story that most will have forgotten about in a month if they paid attention to it at all in the first place. Having a huge chunk of the article taken up by this "controversy" is an example of recentism, especially when the huge chunk consists of things like giving JaredTSwift a direct mention. Zaostao (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on September 14

These proposed changes aren't controversial.

1) This edit [22] changed "Donald Trump retweeted a Pepe representation of himself that was associated with a video, "You Can’t Stump the Trump (Volume 4)"." to "Donald Trump retweeted a Pepe representation of himself that was associated with a montage parody, "You Can’t Stump the Trump (Volume 4)"." Please revert that.

The source [23] for this says "The seven-minute video associated with the image is entitled “You Can’t Stump the Trump (Volume 4).”", and there's no mention of "montage" or "parody" at all in the source, so the previous version was more accurate.

2) This edit [24] changed "The meme came from his comic, Boy's Club #1." to "The character originated in his comic, Boy's Club #1." Please revert that.

The article also says "The foundation of Boy's Club was a zine that he made on Microsoft Paint called Playtime." sourced to this [25]. In that source it says "The foundation of what would become Boy’s Club “started in a little zine I made on Microsoft Paint that was called Playtime,” says Furie. “And it featured Brett and Pepe and I made a really small run of these funny little drawings.” When it was time to turn that work into something more substantial, Furie says he took inspiration from “the zine culture that I saw in San Francisco. I would go ride my bike to the Kinkos and make them [issues of Boy’s Club] myself.”"

So the the Pepe character itself did not originate from Boy's Club. It's usage as a meme seems to have came from the "Feels good man" part from Boy's Club whose "foundation" was the Playtime zine that had Pepe in it, so the previous version was more accurate. I could not find anything that says what the very first Pepe drawing by Matt Furie was, so I think it's best not to say where Pepe as a character "originated" until we have a good source for that. ZN3ukct (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Done As no one else has objected to these changes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

New Daily Caller interview

A new interview with the original sources has them claiming the whole thing was a prank to mock journalists. [26] "The troll consisted of Town and Swift feeding an outrageous narrative to Nuzzi in the hopes she would scoop it up and feature as many quotes as possible, which is a fairly common practice among various alt-right groups to gain in-group status... The stewards of this Twitter world are notoriously capricious and trolltastic. They could even retract this mea culpa of sorts. Either way, this is almost certainly the case: A journalist with a clear lack of healthy skepticism and an added dose of internet dopiness got duped." --OKNoah (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. I'm working on some edit proposals and I'll use this as a source. ZN3ukct (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also of note, the original "source" for Pepe being associate with White Nationalism is The Daily Beast. Of which, M. Clinton's daughter happens to sit on the board of directors of. So, to 'ftfy', "A journalist with a clear lack of healthy skepticism, working for a politically biased site with an agenda, and an added dose of internet dopiness got duped." 70.100.46.228 (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, could you provide a source this? I'll try to look for one if you don't come back. ZN3ukct (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Beast#Relation_with_the_Clinton_campaign "The Daily Beast is owned by IAC, where Vice Chair of the Clinton Foundation, Chelsea Clinton, serves on the board of directors." Source on that quote is here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/13/inside-the-slimy-world-of-chelsea-clinton-conspiracy-theories.html. It states: "In 1999, the Drudge Report alleged that Chelsea—who serves on the board of Daily Beast parent company IAC". Apologies if I am making any mistake with the format. Never really used wikipedia before aside from reading it. 79.130.245.210 (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how to incorporate that information. The term "The Daily Beast" will link to its Wikipedia article if my or anyone else's proposed edits include it. Anyone who comes across that article may see that information. I'll post my proposed edits in a different section below. ZN3ukct (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, and obviously this is just what I believe, the whole "pepe is a nazi meme look at Trump posting the nazi meme" is basically a Hillary campaign thing almost exclusively and simply echoed in Hillary alligned media (directly like daily beast or indirectly like CNN). Now, obviously, it doesn't mean that it is 100% and absolutely wrong, but it does mean that not stating it as a fact in the page (I think the current wording is pretty damn good in that regard) nor allowing it to take over the whole article would be appropriate. Cheers. 79.130.245.210 (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edit to the "History" section

• During the 2016 United States presidential election, associations with Donald Trump's campaign, white nationalism, and the alt-right to Pepe were described by various news organizations.[27][28][29] In May 2016, two Twitter users who used the names Paul Town (@PaulTown_) and Jared Taylor Swift (@JaredTSwift) were interviewed by Olivia Nuzzi of The Daily Beast. Town told her that there is “an actual campaign to reclaim Pepe from normies” and Swift said that "turning Pepe into a white nationalist icon was one of our original goals." The article which contained parts of the interview said that it began on 4chan's /r9k/ board, where "Pepe transformed from harmless cartoon to big green monster", and then moved to Twitter. Nuzzi described Pepe images and Trump memes that were tweeted, some of which were sexually explicit, violent, or mixed with Nazi imagery. Some journalists and other prominent people publicly asked about Pepe or criticized its usage.[30] In September, an article published on Hillary Clinton's campaign website quoted "We basically mixed Pepe in with Nazi propaganda, etc. We built that association," from The Daily Beast interview and described Pepe's usage by "white supremacists" in relation to Trump's campagin.[31][32] Swift and Town made responses to this, which were published by The Daily Caller. Swift, in agreement with Town, said that he "interspersed various nuggets of truth" , "exaggerated a lot of things, and sometimes outright lied" in the interview with Nuzzi in order to make her "believe that online Trump supporters are largely a group of meme-jihadis who use a cartoon frog to push Nazi propaganda because it "was funny" to him.[33] When asked how Pepe became used as a "weird Nazi thing" by some people in an interview with The Atlantic, Matt Furie, its creator, said that, "it’s just a phase, and come November, it’s just gonna go on to the next phase".[34]

• Rational: There have been many sources describing Pepe's associations with these groups before the Hillary article was published. Some, but not all, have even described it as a "symbol" for each. Saying that associations "to Pepe were described by various news organizations" is the most fair way I can think of. The Hillary article makes no mention of "white nationalism" or even "nation". Most of recent coverage seems to have came because of that article. The Daily Beast was quoted in that article, many other sources have quoted from or linked to the DB, so I summarized both of them the best I could. I used quotes from The Daily Caller follow up to summarize what they did, which specifically calls them "Paul Town (@PaulTown_) and Jared Taylor Swift (@JaredTSwift)". I used the part starting from "Basically, I interspersed" because that seems to be the most relevant part. The quote from Furie shows that this is just one part of Pepe's history.

Also, let's try to keep the 2016 coverage less than half of the "History" section. ZN3ukct (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There are also interviews with the cartoon's creator, which clearly explain the actual context in which he created it - it has nothing to do with politics. Avaya1 (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This part is about the media coverage it got during the election, and there is plenty. Even in The Guardian interview he's asked questions like "What was it like seeing The Deplorables picture with the characters replaced with famous heads including Pepe’s?" and "What is your hope for Pepe post-election?" ZN3ukct (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edit to the "Notable uses" section

• Roger Stone and Donald Trump Jr. posted a parody movie poster of The Expendables on Twitter and Instagram titled, "The Deplorables", which included Pepe.[35]

• Comments: I don't think we should include Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comments to this page. That would be more appropriate for the 2016 presidential campaign articles. People can find out the details of this by following the source link. The source was published before the Hillary Pepe article and it does not say anything about "white supremacism", but it does describe Pepe as a "a popular white nationalist symbol" by the way. ZN3ukct (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed "Further reading" section

• Singal, Jesse (September 16, 2016). "How Internet Trolls Won the 2016 Presidential Election". NYMag. Retrieved September 16, 2016.

WP:FURTHER, WP:Further reading. This is the type of article that I think is appropriate for this section. It is the best one to use IMO. ZN3ukct (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian features an interview with the cartoon's creator, Mike Furie

• "The San Francisco cartoonist and painter Furie created Pepe as part of his laid-back cartoon Boy’s Club, which was collected in print by comics publisher Fantagraphics this July. The easygoing strip chronicles the adventures of four roommates – Pepe, Andy, Brett and the malicious Landwolf – who spend a lot of time getting high, farting, spouting catchphrases and generally behaving like people who think Pepe memes are funny."

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/sep/14/pepe-the-frog-artist-supports-hillary-clinton

Avaya1 (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This should be added IMO. --Killuminator (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Which quote from Furie? That part is from The Guardian writer. The Atlantic and in other interviews has parts where he says "it's just a phase", that's why I thought it was best to use one of those. Daily Dot [36]: "It's just a phase, it's not the first time Pepe has been reclaimed for evil, and no one will care about it come November." Washington Post [37]: “I think he’s on a weird manifestation right now,” Furie said, “It’s unfortunate that he’s peaking nationally in the news in this really negative way, but I think it’s just a phase.” ZN3ukct (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

What about El Sapo Pepe y Las Pepas, the Spanish children's band?

This Wikipedia article doesn't mention the Spanish band El Sapo Pepe y Las Pepas, which might be the same as Candela. They made a number of children's sing-along videos around the year 2012 or possibly earlier. The character El Sapo Pepe (The Toad Pepe, n.b. allegedly not a frog) is introduced in the song "El Sapo Pepe", and he looks exactly like Pepe the Frog. I suspect the NSFW comic in English predates the Spanish sing-along character, but I think it is strange that they copied such a character for a young audience. 146.115.179.89 (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

All amphibians do not look alike. El Sapo Pepe has green lips and golden eyes; Pepe the Frog has brown lips and white eyes. My childhood liking of frogs and toads 60+ years ago predated both Pepes AND Kermit; unless I see notable, reliable, citable sources that El Sapo's creators were copying the Frog I'll feel safe in assuming it's coincidence based on childish popularity of the name and of amphibians. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

More edits?

I think it would be good to have a source for the statement "Pepe became associated with Donald Trump's campaign" that is not the Hillary Clinton blog post. Also, are there any valid articles taking the alternative point of view, that Pepe is not associated with "white nationalism"? There's the "Daily Caller" article but is there anything else? Porphyro (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is what seems to be an NPOV article (so far as I can tell) from Jesse Singal at New York (magazine).[38] Kelly ^hi! 13:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is notable that the 2016 Clinton campaign and its media and political supporters have made Pepe the Frog an alt-right meme, rather than just an everyperson's middle finger to the establishment meme; just as notable as their transformation of Trump's "second amendment people" comment into "second amendment solutions". It is notable as a feature of American election campaigning. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've seen some speculation on the Internet that the reason Clinton's campaign and allies in the media have attacked Pepe is because they perceived the pro-Trump Pepe memes as being effective and threatening to the campaign. Need some sources... TweedVest (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Not likely we can find sources for that.

Removed Redundant Information

I removed the statement "In USA, Pepe the Frog has recently become associated with the White Nationalist movement, and and former Ku Klux Klan officer David Duke tweeted his own version of Pepe, along with the tagline: “Anti-Racist is a code word for anti-white.", as seen in this edit. I did this because Pepe's association to White Nationalism is already mentioned in the "History" section of the page. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I agree no need to redundantly mention White Nationalism or White Supremacy, HOWEVER, David Duke's tweet using Pepe as part of his Senate compaign is certainly a notable use which ought to be included. So I will replace just the David Duke comment. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

In the article that you have cited, David Duke did not use the Pepe meme, he did his own take of Clinton's Deplorables comment. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Change the reference to Esquire's website to this so it looks like the others. Miller, Matt (September 28, 2016). "Exclusive: The Creator of Pepe the Frog Is Voting for Hillary". Esquire. Retrieved September 29, 2016. BigGuy88 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: you will be autoconfirmed within 2 days at which time you can make the edit — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Done clpo13_(talk) 21:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

BRD discussion for my edit (Singal's article, ADL page, Furie voting)

MobileDiff/742597775

@Zaostao: @ZN3ukct: I am not quite sure why my edit was reverted. This is a BRD discussion.

• Furie voting for Clinton was directly discussed in the previous (Esquire magazine) citation.
• The ADL "Hate on Display" page writes

  ", it is important to examine use of the meme only in context. The mere fact of posting a Pepe meme does not mean that someone is racist or white supremacist. However, if the meme itself is racist or anti-Semitic in nature, or if it appears in a context containing bigoted or offensive language or symbols, then it may have been used for hateful purposes. "

• Jesse Singal and his NY magazine article is already part of the article, and I tried to summarize him. Can you help?

Thanks. - Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Matt Furie's political activity is unrelated to the article subject, and the Jesse Singal bit was an undue quote. You could re-add/refactor the specificity on the ADL if you want but keep in mind recentism—I personally think there's enough info on the affair as is. Zaostao (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that the ADL clarification can reasonably be expected to be less relevant in 10 years. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Re:Singal- do you feel that the link to the article should be taken out of the "further reading" section? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Matt Furie is currently a redirect to this article. Someone can start and article on him, and add his political activity there if they want. Emily Goldstein (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It may work as a subsection to this article. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: please come and offer your perspective. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Notable uses

"Pepe" being yelled at a Hillary Clinton speech counts a notable use. After Pepe made national headlines after being put on Hillary's website and international headlines as a hate symbol because of the ADL it was played on MSNBC and NPR as an example of its usage. We should list it as an example also.

It was also mentioned on ABC News, The Chronicle of Higher Education, the Commonwealth Journal, the Inquisitr and Vanity Fair. Emily Goldstein (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Any bets most of this will disappear by the end of Nov 2016 as Not Notable About Pepe

Most of this stuff belongs on pages for 2016 Trump Clinton campaign rhetoric and does not really belong on the Pepe the Frog page. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Notable uses

This has been here since January.[39] This was recently removed by Deathawk.[40] I reverted that but then Volunteer Marek removed it again, no reason given this time.[41]. Could we wait one week before removing a section that has been here for so long? I could be the only one who wants to keep it but there might be others. Several people have edited this section and added to it since January. Emily Goldstein (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Deathhawks edit summary describes the reason accurately and succinctly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• I would like to keep the "notable uses" section, but it needs to be summarized in prose instead of a list. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

"Frog" is not a species

Currently says Species: Frog

This is technically not correct. "Frog" is not a species. There are many different species of frogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.73.2 (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the "Notable uses" section

User:Drmies recently removed the "Notable uses" section, saying trivia--and the Trump thing already mentioned.

I reverted it asking him to first create a talk page about it but he apparently he doesn't want to do that - which is why I created it.

I'd like to leave the debate to others but I'd weakly oppose the removal as a list of notable uses is very relevant in this article. Pepe the Frog is itself a kind of neutral / non-saying meme that has been used by various people for various purposes and in various ways and I think that notable uses - if they're not too plenty - are very relevant here just as in most other cases.

And at the very least the New Zealand flag referendums, 2015–16 thing should be named in the article.

What do others think about this? Should the section be readded?

--Fixuture (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well thank you. Yes, I object strongly to this kind of trivia/nonsense. Did I seriously see that an encyclopedic article mentioned that someone posted a picture of a twerking frog on Instagram? And the Trump thing is already discussed. So no, these aren't in fact notable, not everything that can be verified is worth including, and this stuff isn't of encyclopedic relevance. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• I object to removing the Pepe "Popular Culture" section. It wasn't just "someone" who posted a picture of "a twerking frog", it was Nicki Minaj. Although Trump's connection to pepe was previously mentioned, the "Popular Culture Section" gave specific examples such as Donald Trump's posting a pepe meme on Twitter or Donald Trump Jr's "Deplorables" post. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the section so that it only includes information not related to the Trump's campaign. I also removed the incident at Reno, Nevada since it wasn't widely covered by reliable sources. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

Link internet meme in the first sentence. 103.6.159.90 (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Done I also unlinked the second occurrence of internet meme. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

CN tag for "Symbol of Alt-Right"

I have added Citation needed tag to the sentence regarding Pepe being a "symbol of the Alt-Right". I did this for 2 reasons:

1. It's unclear what is meant by "symbol". Is Pepe literally meant as the symbol that is to represent the Alt-Right? That is, if a politician were to run for office under the "Alt-Right" banner, would a frog be its mascot, similar to the Donkey or Elephant for mainstream parties? I find it hard to believe that this is what was intended by the writer, and is likely just a carry over from my second concern.
2. I think that due to the current popular nature of Alt-Right politics, that it is difficult to ascribe a specific symbol to a political movement (party...?), described by Wikipedia itself as a, "loose group of people with far-right ideologies". I find it hard to believe that all, or even a majority of Alt-Right supporters would even be aware of Pepe's existence prior to the ADL hate symbol listing and media coverage that followed immediately afterwards. I think that due to the high profile, strongly emotional response and emotional opinions of what Alt-Right represents or means, it is suspect that Pepe specifically would be linked to that topic. There have been many articles that have parroted back the same phrase of Pepe being a "symbol" of the Alt-Right a few times, and I think that that political rhetoric was then transferred onto this article. In my opinion, it seems readily apparent when the Alt-Right is described as a "controversial movement" instead of something less opinionated or more neutral, such as a: counter-culture, conservative movement, or grassroots movement. Controversial, in the context that it is being used, is very much a dog-whistle term to refer to a topic as racist, without doing so overtly.

Unless a definitive leader for the Alt-Right can be readily be sourced, who has actively endorsed the image of Pepe as a "symbol" of their movement (and preferably explain what exactly that means), I see no reason to remove this tag. If you feel the need to do so, please disucss it here prior to removal. Thanks. Sawta (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Bias

I understand this meme has existed long before several major news outlets decided to conflate it with white supremacy. The fact that this has been allowed to filter into an 'encyclopaedia' article is concerning. The meme's appropriation by white supremacists or any other hate group should definitely be referenced. But the fact that this article opens with "Pepe the Frog is a popular Internet meme and symbol of white supremacy" represents a level of attention to fact as acute as a tabloid gossip magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjenkin1987 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You should at least read the first sentence of the article before you start talking about it, as it does not say what you think it does. All the points you've made are either false or completely irrelevant to the article as it's actually written. 100.36.197.179 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Richard Spencer

As multiple sources have reported, Spencer was answering a question his Pepe pin on his jacket when the famous punch happened [42] [43]. Kind of surprised to see no mention of it here, did I misss it or is there some reason it's not there? Seems notable as it immediately spawned nearly as many memes as Pepe himself.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done per WP:SILENCE. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Weaponized Autisim

Thinking about adding this to the project but not sure where it fits and this article looks like a suitable place. Would it be wrong? TeeVeeed (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Why here, exactly? From my understanding of that phrase it has been widely used on 4chan and other such places for quite a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, as it was used by both sides in US election 2016 along with the Pepe meme. Maybe it does need an article but I'm wondering if it is offensive or inappropriate somehow for WP although it is a "thing" and it was used in propagating Pepe but not sure about reliable sources either?02:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)edit to add TeeVeeed (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Kek/Kekism/Kekistan edit war

Could we please discuss this here instead of edit warring? That's be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Having a hard time finding any third-party coverage of the Kekistan stuff. Since it's only sourced to the YouTuber's video and KnowYourMeme, it should absolutely be removed due to a lack of sourcing / significance. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the sourcing is weak I'll agree, did the best I could but despite this meme being literally everywhere right now, it hasn't seen much secondary sourcing except on 'know your meme'.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2017

With demands being made for a Kekistan Republic, Nash-Jones declared Bir Tawil to be Kekistan. Kevinthomas1864 (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Nope. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Well (not) done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

References

 Note: Closing as answered. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Origins of KEK

"kek" originated as a Korean onomatopoeia, ㅋㅋㅋ, which roughly makes repeated "K" sounds. It is meant to represent laughter, and was used on Star Craft between Korean players when Korean language compatibility wasn't available. This is the root of the use in World of Warcraft. http://et.worldofwarcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Orcish mentions it, but you can even look back at the old "Zerg Rush" meme as evidence. 184.54.173.22 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Review of wording

Someone should review how this page is worded so certain points won't be put in a biased negative light and so not to add unnecessary details that could show a bias. Pro Yankee (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

there was some stuff that this applies to added to the 'kekistan' section today that I have removed. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 00:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Kekistan

Hi Insertcleverphrasehere. Before reverting every single one of my edits wholesale, why not try discussing it on talk? Or, err, leaving a reason in your edit summary? It's a bit rude, to say the least. Especially that you marked such a revert as 'minor', which it blatantly is not. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I was just editing a comment and restoring one of your edits unrelated to the Kekistan section. The rollback function marked it as minor automatically, which was unintentional (I am new to using it and was not aware that it would not give me a chance to add an edit summary. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Re: Heat Street, it's essentially Breitbart-lite. It has no established history of fact checking, and the intent in establishing the publication was as a provider of specifically partisan/biased coverage. We can use it for the opinions of authors on it, but we really should not be using it to state fact. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I rolled back your edits of the Kekistan section because they were all related to the removal of the Heat Street source, and it was the only way to restore that content without manually adding each ref in again. I'd like to discuss why you think it is not a reliable source? To my knowledge it has not been discussed at RSN and I see it being cited commonly on the wiki. Big surprise to me that you would categorically state it as unreliable. Is there something I missed? — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I honestly thought people editing in this topic area would be aware of the nature of Heat Street. It's roughly on par with The Daily Mail, except newer and without a newspaper. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I seem to remember us having a discussion about Heatstreet before, over on Carl Benjamin, note that Heat Street is still used as a source over there. Consensus was not that Heat Street was unreliable then, and I don't see how anything has changed. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

So you are aware of the contentiousness, yet still chose to revert everything I'd done without discussing it? Jee whiz. Please note the last comment there (I made it!)- "If the material being added is uncontroversial, sure. I'd suggest including the writer as well, e.g. "Jane Doe, a journalist for Heat Street, wrote that..." or similar wording.". E.g., Heat Street is reliable for the opinions of its writers (as I've already stated in this very section), but not facts. I'm going to suggest you self-revert. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Use of the Daily Mail was decided by RfC over on RSN (which in full disclosure I voted to be 'unreliable'). Heat Street has none of the hallmarks that led to the Daily Mail being 'banned' as a source (i.e. A reputation for complete fabrication of stories etc). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, there is no contentiousness. I am going to decline to self revert. I don't agree that Heat Street is an unreliable source, and I'd like to see a few others weigh in on the issue before butchering the section. In any case, removing the referencing like you did without also reverting all of the information that was added along with the source (that was sourced to the Heat Street reference) is not the way it should be done. We would have to go all the way back to the version before I rewrote the Kekistan section using the Heat Street source. Reverting back to your version is not a solution, it creates a citation needed mess. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no doubt that information can be found for some of the content which would be unsourced without Heat Street- removing it all would not support the encyclopedia. We just need to be less lazy and find better sources than a partisan rag. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

After having been involved in that discussion, you don't find it contentious at all? Curious! Perhaps it would be easier to focus on the inverse of the problem - why do you believe that Heat Street is a reliable source? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Pretty much all news sources these days are partisan one way or the other to some extent. That doesn't make them 'unreliable'. We also have a cite to the Gaurdian in the section, which is about as far left as Heat Street is right. It isn't about being lazy, some articles, such as this one, are not covered by centrist sources, so we have to make it work using a balance of sources. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As for the previous discussion and contentiousness, the consensus previously was that Heat Street was retained as a source in the previous article. This to me points to a situation where we have a previous discussion resulting in retention of the source, and nothing I could find on RSN disagrees with that. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Heat Street was used for one thing, not a statement of fact, and nobody seemed to disagree with my last comment. I don't think the conclusion you're drawing is the conclusion a reasonable outside observer would form on reading that discussion. It's interesting to me that you believe the Guardian is far left, or partisan, or something like that. Would you please explain to me in detail what particular bias you believe the Guardian displays? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

See my comment below, not interested in getting into an edit war here, and not really interested in another huge discussion about a source. I am off to bed mate. Might take the source to RSN at some point soon as it seems overdue. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I'll take your suggestion and start a RSN discussion, and ping you there. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As a complete aside- the rollback tool should really be only be used in cases of obvious vandalism/ban evasion or on pages in your user space - not when reverting good faith edits. There's a more indepth list of when to use it here, which you should read. Specifically, "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool.". PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, It was accidental use. I meant to use Twinkle's "Rollback" function, which works differently to the rollback tool but confusingly named similarly. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted this 'accidental use' of the rollback tool, contrary to its intended use. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Lovely. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war over this, but you might want to add a bunch of citation needed tags all over the place where you have removed the heat street citations. Though as I have actually been following the sources on this, there are no other sources for this information so you might as well revert it to the version it was a few days ago [44]. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issues in Kekistan section

So I see two major NPOV issues in the Kekistan section. The first is a link to an article that seems to be heavily biased, the headline itself says that Pepe is being used for "fascism." Should that kind of loaded language serve as a source? It also places free speech in scare quotes when discussing the rally where the flags appeared. If my understanding is correct scare quotes are an NPOV issue are they not?Javerthugo (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)