Talk:Anonymous

I am triggered by this article
Ugh. I just loathe it when all what people associate with Anonymous are some script-kiddies with LOICs. Even when constricted by the scope of 4chan, being an anonymous is so much more than that! There are many dozens of different ways to commit senseless acts of cruel idiocy, make a flaming ass out of yourself, dig up and stir the most disgusting pile of human perversion you can find, and generally engage in meaningless ritualised banter composed of jokes that aren't funny and mutual mental masturbation -- and the usual "hacktivist" thing is just one tiny slice of it! So stereotypical.

I don't even mention the cases where we actually stand up to do noble and productive things to the society, which most always fail spectacularly in a pile of absurdity and leave everyone wondering what and why we did in the first place. How could one possibly say this amounts to nothing? I would even say that the Anonymous subculture is one of the most shitty examples of postmodern perfomance art humanity has suffered in this century! And yet everything people seem to talk about is some random DDOSes of government websites. Honestly, I feel like the contemporary society just cannot appreciate the intrinsic value of the lack of any intrinsic value anymore. --95.221.194.28 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Should 4Chan Redirect to Anonymous?
I'm no expert on either, but I feel they are distinct enough to warrant separate articles.

Based on my own cursory observations, Anonymous seems to have a social libertarian streak with elements of liberalism or leftism, and seems to be more sympathetic to, say, minorities or women's groups than the pretty reactionary userbase of 4Chan.

Of course, like I said, I'm no expert, and haven't looked at any sources to support my impressions of them, but I'm just throwing this out here for people more versed in their actions to deliberate on.
 * Many 4chaners are fucking bigots, racists and misogynists.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   21:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay? Ikanreed (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * K.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   21:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bigotry, racism and misogyny are rather not okay, actually. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Books
Is adding a section listing a book(s), including one that is widely considered the most comprehensive on a topic, considered irrelevant? Is it revert-worthy? ---Mona- (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not just put it in the external links section? Player 03 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. I had considered that initially but my brain wouldn't quite wrap around calling a book an "external link." It's no doubt available as ebook, but it's also paper.---Mona- (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did you add the book? As far as I'm aware, no other page has suggested book reading lists on them. What makes this one book that important? And I've removed it again because I've had a ton of edit conflicts when responding.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 06:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I just know people who say it's a good treatment of Anonymous by an academic. There are some criticisms of it -- some think she's too close to her subject. But she's an activist in her own right and I just thought it merited inclusion. If youtube videos, why not books? ---Mona- (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's better to incorporate information from the book and cite it rather than just dump a link to it on the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 06:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? I really don't get your objection. How is THE book about Anonymous not relevant? I honestly don't get how that could be?---Mona- (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just not seen a precedent for just linking to books like that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 06:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd prefer that you restore it since it can't reasonably be said that it's irrelevant, as you stated. But I'm not going to the mat over this. So I leave it up to you. Good night.---Mona- (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous
They are dead now, right, dude? if not, then that's pretty not awesome.
 * Please sign your talk page comments with ~ . 02:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s one Long Ass intro
The opening section this article looks to be about as long as the entire rest of the article. I’m thinking, would it be a good idea to possibly split the intro into multiple sections to make it a bit more readable/better structured? Meth Right’s Activist (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's a good idea.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a go at some text reshuffling, and changing of outdated wordings (e.g. 2013 is no longer recent), placing most of the upper half under a "Broader movement" heading. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)