Talk:/pol/

IP removing Epstein content

Once again, we’re only putting what the source says - that it /pol/ was started right after Poole met with Epstein. If you read something more from that, that’s on you. Snokalok (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

there's no proof he encouraged Chris to create /pol/! Also looking at this edit summary, it occurs to me to inform you that if you have a conflict of interest with the subject, you are required to declare it on wiki to the proper editors. Snokalok (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I suspect many random new IP addresses and brand new user accounts are gonna keep undoing any edits related to Epstein, and that'll likely continue for weeks/month unless a mod/admin steps in to add a temp lock to the page ILC YT (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

My problem personally is that there is no evidence linking the two events whatsoever. Christopher Poole could have met a lot of people during that period.

What if Jeffrey advised him against it? Do you we know that for a fact?

The sentence is basically insinuating a connection between the two events, despite no evidence. ~2026-69479-1 (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair point to consider that there were multiple people at the party, so it might have not been Jeffery specifically who gave the idea for /pol/. Still though, it's his party, so he's gonna be mentioned one way or the other. ILC YT (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The board was created directly after the meeting. No one is categorically claiming that the meeting was the cause for the creation of it, but regardless, there is still a clear link and the information is very much relevant. ~2026-69679-4 (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

If that is all you're trying to suggest, then it needs to be rephrased. A "meeting with JE" implies a 1-on-1, and saying that it happened "following the meeting" suggests a direct link.

Something like "on the day of /pol/'s launch, Poole attended a social event with <list of attendees here>. When this was discovered in 2026, it led to online speculation that the two events may have been related, with no evidence" would more accurately reflect the reality here.

Also, since any links are purely speculation, this does *not* belong in the lede. Apples grow on pines (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

What's even the source or prove that /pol was created on October 23, 2011? Cause I can't find any. ~2026-70438-1 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a timeline linked in the history section that states that /r9k, /pol, and a handful of other boards were all created on Oct. 23, 2011. It's a user-generated source so it's considered unreliable & should be replaced with a better source, but that's been the source the article has used for years.

Unfortunately we don't have an archive of the earliest posts to this particular board — none of the archives for it seem to go back past 2013 — but there is some external evidence that suggests but does not concretely prove that that date is correct.

Specifically, we have an archive of the earliest post made to /r9k, likely taken somewhere between 2 & 6 hours after it was made. ("Likely between 2 & 6 hours" as while 4chan times are Eastern, I've been unable to find out what TZ WebCite used. UTC would make the most sense, which would mean the snapshot was taken 2 hours after the post. But if it's also in Eastern, and WebCite was based out of Toronto so it may be, then it's 6 hours.) That archived page has a banner announcing some new boards, among them /pol.

I'd note that those times, regardless of TZ for webcitation.org, splash some serious cold water on the timeline that says they met on the 23rd & /pol was created after the meeting. Because they imply that the board was created extremely early in the morning — possibly between 01:20 & 07:30 Eastern — which would make a timeline that first requires a meeting on that same date unlikely.

— g026r (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

So was /diy/ though ~2026-90096-2 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Expressing an opinion on the substantive issue here would involve looking into 4chan and /pol/ and Chris Poole, which I don't intend to do, but I will remind editors of two things:

1. Article content is based on how much content there is in reliable secondary sources, and
2. not everything that can be sourced belongs in the article, especially the lead.

Phil Bridger (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

We have no reliable secondary sources that note this and adding this this way is WP:SYNTH. The Spectator is only reliable for opinion statements, not fact, WP:THESPECTATOR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

To add to this Wikipedia article: the fact that, according to emails from 2011 in the newly released Epstein files, /pol/ was started days after Christopher Poole met with Jeffrey Epstein. ~2025-32865-45 (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

We don't even know that though. We can make a good guess as to when /pol was created (see my comment above: probably sometime between 01:00 & 07:23 EST on Oct. 23, 2011), but unless there is some evidence that hasn't been linked here — and none of the articles talking about this include anything concrete — we don't actually have the date for when the two of them met. All we have is an email in the newly released archives that was sent on Oct. 20th saying effectively "You should meet Poole", and then another sent on the morning of the 24th saying "What did you think of Poole?" That leaves open a significant window of possibilities for when a meeting occurred, some of which even permit for /pol to have already been created by the time they met. — g026r (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

We don't have any proof of that, per G026r. Also, even if we did, we cannot use primary source legal documents to say things about living people. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

We do have a primary source now published from Vanity Fair. The article emphasizes that their meeting coincided on the same day the board was reinstated. As much as folks on social media and some Wikipedians want to connect the two together, there still no proof the meeting lead to its reinstatement/creation. FunksBrother (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The Vanity Fair article doesn't say that though. I'd even go so far as to say that it seems to deliberately avoid explicitly stating that, preferring to simply imply it:

"According to the newly released documents, Epstein met with Poole in late October of 2011. [snip summary of the Oct 20th & Oct 24th emails] October 2011 is also when the /new/ replacement board, /pol/, was launched."

All that's saying is that it was the same month. Though we know it was closer than just month, the article doesn't provide any support for same day. — g026r (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so we need to remove text associated with it. Christopher Poole and Prominent individuals mentioned in the Epstein files too. We have to be careful and follow WP:BLP. FunksBrother (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

page treats the site as a tumor under analytical observation

Article rarely discusses the board itself, mostly the reactions of ideologues to it ~2026-38542-71 (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia strives to present aspects of the topic according to the amount of coverage they get in reliable sources (see WP:NPOV#Due and undue weight). I don't know how far this article lives up to that ideal. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)