Talk:Pwn/Archive 2

message: Can anyone find anything earlier than this post (August 1999)? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-1 14:59
*Yep, me playing any of several games prior to that, along with thousands of other gamers, and seeing it plastered all over the web.  To deny that its origins are in question is a factual innacuracy, as they are, and most likely always will be.  There is very little proof of anything regarding this word.  To its users, it is as simple and commonplace as the word dog, or pants.  Its there, it gets used, and no reason is seen to document its use.  RE: my entry about pronounciation, I take it you didn't find anything wrong with that, since you said nothing about it?
**I just wanted to know if anyone could find a documented earlier source than that. Of course I and others used the term earlier, but what does that matter? We don't do original research here. Of course the origins are in question; who is saying they aren't? We can't just state our own beliefs about the origins, however. At most, we can provide the most logical origin (the misspelling of own), and then say that "other origins have been posited". — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-3 08:11
I would hardly consider it original research, but more along the lines of public/common/reasonable knowledge or whatever you want to call it.  Generally this is determined either by consensus of participating members, or a look at the general masses involved with the subject matter.  It would seem that such a look at the general masses quite obviously yeilds the result I was talking about before.  Wikipedia defines in WP:NOR that original research constitutes formulating a thesis, or using unrecognized or non-reliable sources, not stating fact.  Otherwise everything on the site could be considered so called "original research".  These theories are stated as just that, Theories held by a signifigant portion of the demographic that the word occurs with.  If this wasn't clear enough in the previous wordings I can make it so.  Last time I checked NOR was not meant to impede the usage of accepted factual information simply because it does not have sources to the letter, so to speak.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earliest occurrence

message: If Wikipedia continues to wank out articles like this one, it will go blind. --Tysto 03:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess since you use big words you're more mature? Step off the high horse. Avengerx 13:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad Wikipedia wasn't founded in the 1950s. We would have oodles of swell articles on all the hep lingo that the cool cats and dollies were using.  That would be the ginchiest, daddy-o. --Tysto 20:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great, I'm sure someone studying 1950's American culture would love to have entries like that for research and reference. While you may not realize it, slang and lingo for individual cultures reflects immensely on the time period and on the people who live within it. The term 'pwn' has been around for several years, and maintains common usage within the online gaming community. The word demonstrates a very prominent culture for today's youth, and therefore I think it would be very useful for someone researching youth culture or internet culture to have this article. Avengerx 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd certainly say this article would give a parent concerned about their child's online exposure more information than those parent articles microsoft and the like put out, no?--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 10:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone studying 1950s culture should read original sources, but for casual readers we should have an article on 1950s slang, not individual articles on ginchie and daddy-o. The point is, there is already an article on Internet slang. There is no need for the overwrought faux scholarship of an article like this. You can explain everything anyone will ever need to know about pwn in two sentences. Even if you think this is a culturally significant term, it should be a sub-section under "own" in Internet slang. --Tysto 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already come up in a deletion proposal once.  If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and try to get it deleted again.  Outside of a deletion debate it serves no purpose to pose these questions or hypothetical alternatives.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 08:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ephemeral adolescent cult slang

message: This may or may not have anything to do with the modern usage, but I discovered something interesting when doing a google search of textfiles.com. There seems to have been a Phreaking newsletter whose news section was Phrack World News, commonly abbreviated as PWN (and referenced as such in various other files and word listings). This may have also played off of "Pulse Width Modulation". Seems like the magazine started in '85 and the abbreviation started at least in '86. --ShawnF
:See my comment  below.  kostmo 04:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phrack Magazine and Phrack World News

message: I think, with some rewording, the origins could lose the cite tags. Much of this is common knowledge, and could be passable without cite tags everywhere. This isn't to say they are not needed, but having too many cite tags is unsightly and non-MOS. --Shadow Puppet 20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the actual term "pwn" or "pwned" originates from the game Warcraft where a mispelling of the term "owned" was used by the game to indicate when a player had defeated another player.
Any truth to this? --Shadow Puppet 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Unlikely.  Its been under debate for as long as I can remember.  The word's entymology(sp?) suffers from the "I know someone who knows someone" syndrome.  Its very difficult to find a citable statement defining its origin, and as you can see from this talk page, and the article's history, a lot of people come in claiming to know exactly what they are talking about when in fact they are either blatantly wrong, or have absolutely no citation.  The best we can do is cite the most common speculations on the part of outside sources.  Hence not breaking either citation policy or WP:NOR.  As a result one can disprove claims but it will probably be impossible to prove any.  For example, there are documented uses of the word pwn before starcraft came out, so its out of the question that starcraft was the origin.  However the warcraft one is a possiblity as far as I know, because I have not seen any reliable sources stating otherwise.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite tags

message: The "Parent's Primer" link under Resources is defective. --Luc 03:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved your statement here to a new section instead of having it as a part of an expired line of discussion that hasn't been addressed in 4 months.  Its more suited for its own section anyways.  To answer your statement.  It is, but should remain there, as it was a legitimate reference when was accessed and posted.  I will note that the link is broken, but as a citation it needs to remain.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken reference link

message: This term is just a typo of "own", which already has an article. I'm suggesting we merge it. Also, there are references at the bottom, so I don't see why the  tag was added again. Isopropyl 04:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Kindly don't ascribe motives to people based on your own supposition. I didn't remove it as the result of "a talk page dispute". I intially attempted to FIX the entry by providing a counterpoint to the unsourced speculation. Since that was rejected, I had no choice but to remove it. Kindly explain why my addition was unacceptable yet the entry as it stands IS acceptable. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a LONG STANDING citation needed tag for the entire article, don't be glib. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Forgive me if I seemed hostile, but I took some of your statements and edit summaries to be rather confrontational and accusatory when I was honestly trying to edit the article to improve it. If you think you're going to be able to solve things in the short term, I have no problem waiting a few days. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I have been extremely busy with coursework and such, and I don't see any reason to hold this process any longer while I have been unable to find enough verifiable information and references on the subject.  As a result, I will not object to the merge with Owned or the changes we have been discussing.  However, I am not changing my position, just yeilding that there is no point in fighting for it while I obviously do not have the time to do the job right.  As it stands I would just be wasting everyone else's time.  If the merge is done though, I would just ask that before the article is deleted (which of course would happen after the transfer of relevant information) that a recent version and this talk page be archived somewhere.  Maybe at a later date when I have less restrictions on my time I may be able to do the project justice, but for now I'm just holding it back.  --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: removal of "language filter" theory 

message: leave it as it is, it is a very scolarly definiton for a simple term as pwn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.196.64 (talk • contribs) 
A couple of things... Although having someone agree with my point on the issue is nice, I question the validity of an IP.  Best to make sure its not a sock puppet if someone has the capacity to do that.  Also I dont see why this warranted its own section?  As a matter of fact, I cant even tell 100% if it is referring to the merger debate or the sourcing problem.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 02:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess thats a possibility too.  Either way... aw whatever.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep

message: "Another origin stems from the degree of domination involved in a game. Some gamers use the term pwn as a higher form of "own," meaning that they are "owning" in a more distinguishable fashion."
That seems much less like an "origin" and much more like a usage note to me.  Sure, maybe it's used (by some) as a "more distinguishable" form of "owning", but that doesn't explain why it came to be used that way.
--MattR.R. 01:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Origins" 

message: Why is no one suggesting a link between pwn and pawn (the chess peace)?  I remember learning the word verbally as slang way before ever hearing of warcraft or seeing the word used on the internet.  I assumed the term was derived from suggesting that a person had such little playing skills that he was just a minor piece with little threat being manipulated or toyed with like pawn would be by a master chess player.  In addition no one seems to have any specific information about the warcraft theory (no exact map title, no screen-shots, nothing) and even if there were, how many people would have seen this originally?  Pwn is cute, but not nearly as hilarious or ironic as "all your base are belong to us," not nearly interesting enough to stick around for as long as it has.
To own someone is not as humiliating as not only to own them and manipulate them because they are worthless. I suggest that the origin of the word is from a chess slang pawn and was shortened for brevity to pwn.
*For as much as the Warcraft theory has been stuck in this article, nobody has ever bothered to get a screenshot of this typo. I was playing video games back when nobody used pwn, and witnessed the shift from own to pwn; I very much doubt that the kids playing Quake even know how to play chess. There is no doubt that the term came from own. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-4 15:49
: Brian is right. I saw it happen too. The ONLY origin of "pwn" is in parody of those who mistyped "own". It did not start any other way and has no other meaning. It has absolutely no connection with the word pawn, or any of the other unhelpful myths. Tale 22:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pawn=pwn? 

message: I have been thinking about this, and assuming that the article does not get merged (I conceded my objections to that a while ago) I propose the following:
Due to the nature of the word and the article as a result, it might be best to rethink the manner in which the origins section is presented.  Almost no origin will have citable notation of its existence.  The best bet would be to collect the most prevalent [b]theories[/b] on origins, and note them as such.  If done properly it will not violate WP:NOR and will actually make for a much more informational article.  For example, the Warcraft origin is so prevalent on the net that while no pictoral proof exists (I searched 10 results list pages deep into the google search a number of times.) that it was used, it is a prevalent theory by respected gaming websites, and should be noted [b]as a prevailing theory[/b].  This can be done for others as well, and would provide for the most comprehensive coverage of the issue as possible.  The key to making this work would be to make very clear, perhaps redundantly, that these are outside theories, not necessarily proven, and not necessarily fact, but that they are important to be noted. Just like it is important to note that there are people who believe in creationism even though it is a thoery by all accounts.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin section. 

message: It is odd that the typo theory is listed twice. Since there is nothing really to suggest the word comes from the Counterstrike game other than it is often used there, as it is on almost all games these days. I suggest that the typo in counterstrike theory be removed or merged with the first point. 
Personally I know of only 2 theories, one that "pwn" is a typo on "own" and the other that it is a reference to the chess piece (pawn) which is supposed to be the strongest piece on the board; so in a game of chess, finishing a game victoriously with a pawn is called "pawning." The standard internet/SMS shortening of words usually just means missing out vowels, so "pawn" would shorten to "pwn." I haven't made these edits myself as i can't be bothered dealing with closed minded critics and authors who don't like to be corrected. Perhaps someone could consider doing so, after verifying the chess theory, or at least dealing with my first point. --KX36 20:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any point to this?  The issue was settled already. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 06:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo theory twice + unmentioned Chess theory

message: Though "pwn" originated as a misspelling of the word "own", it has become, over time, a word in itself, and thus should remain on a separate page. Own and pwn have two different meanings (owned means "dominated" whereas pwned means "more than dominated"), and should therefore be kept separate. This is like saying we should put the words "loquatious", "eloquent", and "colloquium" all on the same page as the Latin word "loquor", since it came first. What's the point in merging them anyway?
*Agree --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to direct you to the word "sandwich". That started English. Guess what the French word for a sandwich is? Also, OWNED! is only superlative to pwned by dint of its capitalisation. PWNED! is a step higher again. Keep separate, they are different words. Related, and should be linked to each other, but different. Heliomance 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep them separate 

message: Is it worth adding that Pure Pwnage charecters (most notably Jeremy) pronounce "Pwn" as "Own"? In Episode 10 it made this point very strongly, with Jeremy responding harshly to someone who pronounces it "pone"
Should i add this to the article?
Tommygun141 05:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they fall under the mantle of "reputable source." Rufous 00:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pure Pwnage Pronunciation 

message: I'm French and my keyboard is an AZERTY. And the third line displays "[...] A Z E R T Y U I O P [...]". Could we change the sentence that says it's exclusively on QWERTYs ?--Kirochi (talk)
This is en.wiki or English wiki, so it only matter for the common English users.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.223.137 (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  QWERTYs ? 

message: ===References to 'poon'===
Why was this section removed? I'm bringing it back till some has a good reason for its removal --Bushido Brown 18:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it sounds like someone's poor idea of a joke, and doesn't reference any sources. Rufous 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Refrence any Sources? What are you talking about? The pronounciation used for the Double Entendre section is one of the many pronounciations listed in the pronounciation table. The Poon disambiguation page even mentions Poon as a shortoning of Poontang. Literally speaking if you say pwn out loud as poon it is a Double entendre. Removing this section from the article would be like removing the double entende information and any reference to vagina from the pussy article and relegating it to a word that can only describe a house cat. --Bushido Brown 05:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well whats your response? --Bushido Brown 17:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Entendre 

message: Why was this section removed? I'm bringing it back till some has a good reason for its removal --Bushido Brown 18:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it sounds like someone's poor idea of a joke, and doesn't reference any sources. Rufous 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Refrence any Sources? What are you talking about? The pronounciation used for the Double Entendre section is one of the many pronounciations listed in the pronounciation table. The Poon disambiguation page even mentions Poon as a shortoning of Poontang. Literally speaking if you say pwn out loud as poon it is a Double entendre. Removing this section from the article would be like removing the double entende information and any reference to vagina from the pussy article and relegating it to a word that can only describe a house cat. --Bushido Brown 05:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well whats your response? --Bushido Brown 17:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References to 'poon'

message: The spoken article file is probably the funniest thing I've heard in years. I love how the person reads entire URLs out loud. It's almost surreal. What's the point? I love it when the person says "we pwn3d them hardcore in that basketball game" and "I was pwning like crazy". Hahahahahaha!!! BRILLIANT!!! NIRVANA2764 02:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many are hilarious, especially when they are read by a teenager who is not used to reading aloud. 03:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I the only one who thinks the spoken article file is hilarious? 

message: So what exactly does this article have to do with the topic? (Edit was instituted here, in case you were wondering.) I'm removing it, as it's one of the 3 only edits of an obvious vandal (except a bit more subtle this time). --V2Blast 00:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the editor was trying to insinuate that "pwn" was part of a primitive language. Rintrah 06:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PIE "see also" removal 

message: A large portion of the people speaking this language are 400lb monstrosities living on take-aways in their mum's basement, so when typing 'owned' into world of warcraft with their dialing wand, the result was often incorrect. Any takers?
:That's what the article already says, but without the hilarious characterisation... Rufous 01:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Those nerds got pwned! Oh dear. I must be a monstrosity too. I shall have to console myself with some stale pizza — yum yum yum yum yum. Seriously, nerds and bad spellers existed before World of Warcraft. Rintrah 20:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory

message: I came to this page and there was this sentence, in boldface:
The origination of the term leads back (as does all computer related topics) to hackers. When one would hack into a box and gain 'root' access, that box would then be 'own'ed by said hacker. When said hackers would post details in the various messaging/chat communities the common typo was made (a lot). Then gamers, wise-crackers, graphic artists, musicians, kids that follow trends and large corporate entities adopted the phrase to match their individual requirements of the word "pwn".
I clicked "edit", but the sentence was not in the code. WTF?
Canderous Ordo 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange

message: "Samuel Hicksta" is mentioned a few times in the introduction but he (?) is not explained.
He doesn't seem to warrant his own article on Wikipedia, and so I want to suggest the removal of those references.
Also, the entire article has many punctuation / spelling errors which give a definite "low quality" feel.
I have fixed one or two, but there are simply too many for me to want to attempt!
I believe that this article needs to be seriously polished or even removed.
138.243.228.52 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Samuel Hicksta references had been added today and were just removed as vandalism. --Onorem 17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samuel Hicksta and general quality of article