Jump to content

Talk:The Pirate Bay/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Citation cleanup

I've spent a few hours cleanup up the insanely messy source citations. Not perfect, but a major improvement. There appear to be two cases where a citation has duplicate |work= parameters, but my eyes hurt too much to track them down.

Please read the template documentation and learn the difference between |work= and |publisher=. The |publisher= is an organization. The |work= (a.k.a. |website=, |newspaper=, |journal=, depending on template) is the publication. It's the same as the difference between a record label and an album, or a book publishing company and a book, or News Corp and one of it's many city newspapers. Learn this. Know it. Feel it. For websites, the |work= (short way to say |website=) is the title of the site if it has one, or its domain name if it does not. If the site's title is ambiguous (e.g. Wired for Wired.com, Wired.co.uk, Wired magazine, which are not the same publication, though owned by the same company), use the domain name. If the publisher would be the same as the work (or almost the same, e.g. |publisher=The New York Times Company and |work=The New York Times, or |publisher=The Pirate Bay and |work=ThePirateBay.se), omit the publisher. This is not difficult. Please also note that the |author= parameter being used in the form |author=Smith, Jane is deprecated. Use |last=Smith |first=Jane. Thank you for your cooperation, lest I taunt you a second time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

URL redirects and copycats

We list HTTPS://ThePirateBay.se (with .se for Sweden) at the bottom of this page as the "official site".

Right now when I visited it, I got alternatively redirected to 3 different sites:

Is this happening for anyone else? If so, should we mention in our external links system that TPB is redirecting people from .se to other URLs?

I also notice there are some similar sites but with differences to indicate that they may not be considered officially part of this network, yet want to capitalize on the name:

  • ThePirateBay.To (with .to for Tonga) actually redirects you to PirateBay.To (as does TPB.To). It is the dropping of the "The" at the start which makes me wonder if it's differnt, since "the" is not absent on the Swedish/Laosian/Mongolian/British versions.

A discussion of these mirrors and when they went up I think would be useful for this site as it is heavily confusing when anyone clicking this is redirected. It would help to understand the international presence of this TPB network. Ranze (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the urls has been discussed extensively above. Almost everything on this page, totalling more than 25,000 words of "discussion", was aimed at avoiding the problem that you've had, but failed to achieve that. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Should we just make a mention that it isn't just .se but also the other ends too? Ranze (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The four you mentioned are the same site using multiple domains -- not mirrors. You will find that there exist other sites that use more than one domain for differing as you use the site. Use the Microsoft.com site, and you will find that sometimes you end up on the msdn.com domain. Many large companies will switch you to different domains depending on product, country, or whether you are a client, partner, or investor. Objective3000 (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand how that works... the URLs all connect to the same server? It seems random though, it's the same product, and I'm accessing from the same country in the same role (client) yet it changes so there doesn't seem to be a logical basis for it. Ranze (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a moving target (by design, I assume). They are using CDNs, so the concept of a discrete server that sits in the country indicated by the top level domain is meaningless. Many website URLs redirect to sub domains, aliases, or completely different domains. - MrX 13:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I added links from this article to the fully sourced List of The Pirate Bay proxies article. In two reverts User:Objective3000 deleted these links: [1] [2]
Further input appreciated. CFCF 💌 📧 16:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated this article for deletion as it clearly violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:EL.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Still, if the article exists and is relevant to the subject, a link to it is appropriate. If it's deleted, the link can be removed then, but it shouldn't be removed until then. This applies anywhere, not just this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a poor idea for an article as WP:EL is clear about not giving links to proxies. It is prohibited and with good reason. Only links to the official version of the site should be given. There are also clear breaches of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTHOWTO here. Anyone can type "pirate bay proxy" into a search engine if they want to do this sort of thing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
That is incorrect – none of those points apply.
  • ☒NWP:EL has a section on using redirection serviced such as bit.ly, it has nothing on proxies.
  • ☒NNone of the 7 points at WP:NOTDIR are violated.
  • ☒NNeither the list nor the link to the list is written in a WP:NOTHOWTO format.
CFCF 💌 📧 18:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
That list is blatant PROMOTION and belongs nowhere near Wikipedia.- MrX 17:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Care to elaborate how this is promotion?CFCF 💌 📧 18:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
CFCF just created this new page two days ago and then linked to it to get around the fact that he couldn't add the links here. This is a blatant attempt to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
That is entirely incorrect. I created the page with the intention to list proxy servers in a list type article. Consensus for this page is to include a link, this is no attempt to circumvent any guideline. CFCF 💌 📧 18:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a link. It was settled. Now you are trying to sneak in more links via a trick, against consensus. As I predicted, the RfC would be ignored. Why do we bother with months of discussion if they are ignored and just have to be relitigated time and again? Objective3000 (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Further input appreciated. No it isn't; the only input you have consistently appreciated is that of those who agree with you. —烏Γ (kaw), 19:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not only is it blatant promotion, it's blatant Wikilawyering to ignore our policies, guidelines, and strong consensus. I think it's time to get some administrators to enforce our behavioral policies/guidelines. Are there any ArbCom proceedings that this article falls under, or do we go to ANI? --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I strongly agree, and think ANI is the better venue in general, but I have done no research into ArbCom on this. —烏Γ (kaw), 19:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't find anything in ArbCom specifically noting "Pirate Bay". I'm not familiar with technology-related cases, but I'll look further. Feel free to start at ANI. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe there's anything related to the article in ArbCom. There is an open case where CFCF has been noted as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles/Evidence#CFCF_ignoring_consensus, though the evidence phase is closed.
To ANI then. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
ANI is probably the next place to go yes, but that case is completely unrelated. Can we stick to the issue at hand and avoid WP:Ad hominem? So far there have ben no examples of violation of policy by linking that page. CFCF 💌 📧 19:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is the next place to go, not ANI. CFCF 💌 📧 19:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that this needs to go to ANI at this point, but I do agree with Ronz that this is blatant Wikilawyering. We don't create articles consisting of lists of external links to help people download content that they have no legal or moral right to download. In fact, by convention, we don't create articles consisting of lists of external links. We recently cleaned up List of TED Speakers because of similar issues. I wouldn't be surprised if such a list were also a violation of the TOU. - MrX 20:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Trying to keep reliably sourced material out of articles because WP:DONTLIKE is clear WP:WIKILAWYERING, yes. Please elaborate on which part of the Terms of Use this would infringe upon? Just pointing to unrelated policies and not explaining how there are applicable is not an argument. See WP:TALKPAGEGUIDELINES.
This is a list of sites, so List of TED speakers is irrelevant as it is about people, not websites. CFCF 💌 📧 21:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Given the below RfC and the list's AfD, I do still think ANI should be posted to. —烏Γ (kaw), 22:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
If anyone wants to start an ANI discussion, I'll participate. I'm willing to wait on the AfD. --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
If anyone does think of starting an ANI discussion about this, I strongly suggest that they watch out for boomerangs given the stand that some people have on these issues, and some of the quite ridiculous allegations that have been made. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know. I will proceed with the non-ridiculous allegations like IDHT, NOTLOCAL, DONTLIKE, WIKILAWYERING, gaming, edit-warring, not participating in discussions, ignoring discussions, etc. I probably missed some. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC

Procedural close. The discussion is now moot as List of The Pirate Bay proxies has been deleted as the result of an AfD discussion. AussieLegend (✉) 08:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this page link to the List of The Pirate Bay proxies?

Note:This RfC is not a discussion concerning deletion of that page
  • Support as nominator per WP:DUE – it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. CFCF 💌 📧 21:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Propose to close RfC. This is getting absurd. If the list somehow manages to not be deleted, then a discussion is warranted. If it rightfully gets deleted, this point becomes moot. In either case, this RfC is way too soon and is yet another example of wikilawyering to assert CFCF's control. —烏Γ (kaw), 21:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Propose to close RfC and topic ban CFCF. We just finished an RfC to remove such links that lasted months and took innumerable hours of many editors. You are blatantly ignoring it and starting a new RfC using a trick: instead of including the links, creating a new article with the same links that were denied and more and linking to them at the very top of the article. As I predicted, any RfC on this article will be ignored. You keep proving me correct. This is outrageous behavior. WP is losing admins and editors as it is becoming an unpleasant place to work as settled discussions are constantly reopened by some editors. And, what is the purpose? Anyone can type into Google "pirate bay proxies" and get the answer without an encyclopedia violating a half-dozen guidelines, and laws in its home country to aide those that wish to violate intellectual property rights using an illegal site. Objective3000 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with KarasuGamma, this is definitely getting absurd. Participants at an RfC have absolutely no power to topic ban anyone. Certainly, some people should probably be banned from this topic, but that cannot be an outcome of this RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I know that. I'm suggesting additional actions for a frivolous RfC and am interested in other opinions before taking any action. Forgive me for expressing an opinion and tiring of repeating the same process over and over and over because some people will not accept that their position did not prevail in previous discussions. Objective3000 (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
TPB isn't an "illegal site", are not responsible for the actions of its users and are a protected "Safe Harbor". No laws are violated by linking to it. The case brought by Puerto 80/Rojadirecta against the U.S. Government has proven this in Federal Appeals court. "Intellectual Property" is not copyright and copyright is not a human right, it is a privilege for state imposed monopoly. You are saying that linking to these services is illegal and are accusing editors of committing civil infractions or crimes by doing so; I would suggest treading very cautiously before one accuses editors of crimes. -- dsprc [talk] 04:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
TPB was specifically ruled an illegal site. TPB and its users are absolutely not protected by safe harbor rules as they have flatly refused to obey take-down complaints. Safe harbor requires that you do so. The rest of your edit is your political opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
You do realise that the DMCA is a US-law, safe harbor is not relevant. CFCF 💌 📧 20:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't bring up safe harbor. Objective3000 (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Its still irrelevant when it comes to the legality of the site, US law applies in the US – in many countries piracy is not a crime. Also Dsprc's comment is correct, copyright is not a human right, you can check the UN-conventions. CFCF 💌 📧 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
First, Wikipedia is in the U.S. Second, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights specifically includes intellectual property. Which is irrelevant anyhow. I'm not interested in your political beliefs. Objective3000 (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedias location is not relevant as to whether the site is illegal, beyond the fact that safe harbor laws apply where Wikipedia is located. I'm not stating my opinion, it isn't in there: Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CFCF 💌 📧 21:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is: Article 27. Objective3000 (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) Article 27 does clearly state one has the right to fruits of their labour and maintain private property rights therein.

  • 1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
  • 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Section 1. says we've all the right to participate in and share these cultural works (at least those advancing the art), however. Private property is a human right. -- dsprc [talk] 21:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Hi, everyone. Per WP:SEEALSO, articles can link to related articles. The matter of the merit of the linked article for existence in Wikipedia must be discussed separately, in a proper venue like AfD. If the article is deleted, sure, go ahead and remove the dead link. And yes, I'd like to second KarasuGamma and AussieLegend's concerns. Seriously, why so much heart breaking? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


  • Neutral. The AfD is going to be closed within two days and I don't see any outcome other than deletion. But according to the community consensus, as long as an article is standing, it can be linked. This RfC should have never started. Fleet Command (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, pending AfD results Summoned by a bot. Given the likelihood of the target page being deleted within days, and the lengthy RfC process(es) surrounding the content, adding the link at this time does not seem productive. Rather, it would serve to escalate the conflict for, frankly, little material improvement to the article. The list is interesting, but hardly central to understanding the topic at hand. If the AfD process finishes and the page still exists, that's a clear endorsement of the content and a link **should** be added here as it is clearly related content. -- Forridean (T/C) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

it isnt thepiratebay.se anymore

it's https://thepiratebay.gd/ for me,and someone reverted the link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girayhankaya (talk • contribs) 01:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Girayhankaya: Then provide a source, like you've been asked in the reverting edit summary. There has been endless discussion about the link, and it will not be changed without a very good reason. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 03:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

the good reason is it being the .gd how can i give a source about changing domain,click on thepiratebay.se and see it redirects you to thepiratebay.gd Girayhankaya (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR. Discussed and discussed and discussed. Objective3000 (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like they've gone back to cycling through the domains. The .gd domain is just the current one. On the other hand, .se is the most consistent url, so it seems best to use that. As KarasuGamma and Objective3000 have both said, this has been discussed to death so the .se link will remain unless there is more endless discussion or we have a reliable source confirming that the domain has changed. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

torrentfreak.com

In the past I though that torrentfreak.com was a plausibly reliable source, but I'm starting to think that it isn't because

  • Pseudonymous authors
  • No reputable editorial control
  • Infrequent WP:USEBYOTHERS
  • Self-published
  • Not independent of the subject

Given that a substantial part of this article depends on torrentfreak.com, I suggest that we start culling content that isn't corroborated by additional (secondary) sources, per WP:WEIGHT, and of course WP:RS. I would like to get other editor's thoughts on this.- MrX 17:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I share your concerns, and have been meaning to find the discussions that lead to the FAQ, which includes torenfreak.com as a source.
Talk:The_Pirate_Bay/Archive_6#FAQ. Sadly, no documentation on what discussions led to it. --Ronz (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Talk:The_Pirate_Bay/Archive_5#TorrentFreak_as_a_reliable_source
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_28#Using_a_blog_to_reference_information_on_illegal_online_activity.3F
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34#Reliability_check_on_TorrentFreak
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_63#TorrentFreak
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_118#Sources_at_Web_Sheriff (brief mention)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_120#TorrentFreak
Those are all I could easily find. Looks like there's consensus to use it for technology information. --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
By no stretch of the imagination is TF an RS. But, the last two times I suggested this, I was threatened. Perhaps if enough rational people look at this at the same time, this problem can be solved. Note: the majority of this article relies on TF as a source or sources that are merely repeating TF. This has been an embarrassment for years. Objective3000 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Could you please explain why, and point out if others have offered similar arguments in the many discussions? --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be reliable enough for what it's being cited for. It's a low-quality source, but it's not some random kid's blog; it's multi-writer, multi-editor work that has been consistently covering BitTorrent-related news in rather properly journalistic fashion for years (though with a clear bias, not unlike, say, Fox News or The Christian Science Monitor). It's only partly pseudonymously written (not published - the full name of the managing editor is known), for some individual writers' privacy/security. If particularly controversial claims are being made, let's look at it on a case by case basis. Remember that even primary sources can be cited "with caution" when attributed. For most if not all cases the issue seems resolvable by simply attributing: "According to a 22 June update from TorrentFreak ...", or whatever. It's going to almost necessarily be true that most information available about a site like this is going to come from a publication like TF, and where do you think BBC News, The Guardian, L.A. Times, etc., are getting their own info from? It doesn't make much sense to cite news relying on TF and then refuse to cite TF. I would agree that controversial claims should not be cited (at least solely) to TF, but many facts we're getting from TF are not controversial. It takes no stretch of the imagination, for example, to believe that TPB has been using multiple domain names like thepiratebay.la, etc., since you can simply click on them and verify, and lots of other places confirm it anyway. Tagging every single TF citation with {{rs?}} is going to be disruptively WP:POINTy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
What kind of "proper journalistic fashion" relies nearly 100% on anonymous sources? Objective3000 (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Investigative journalism of criminal and grey-area activity involving informants. You may be confusing anonymous with pseudonymous. Some of these entities have years of history, we just don't know what their legal names are. That's true of various notable subjects, too. My point was that, while TF does obviously have a socio-political position on the issue, and are clear about what it is, actually reporting what is going on appears to be what they're doing, not making up weird bullshit. Not a fantastic source, but within the realm of what we'd cite with attribution as a primary source or a low-quality secondary source (depending on what the specific claim is), especially in the absence of other data. We'd treat, say, a graffiti arts journal, that pseudonymized artists' names, in the same way, and Banksy would remain notable even if his real name was a secret forever. Back issues of High Times and the like remain valid, if lower-quality, sources on insider information in the cannabis underground (to the extent there still is one), despite pseudonymizing sources (and most of the material also being written under pseudonyms, though that might not be apparent from the bylines). Most romance novels are written under pseudonyms, but the writers can still be notable even if their real names are not known. Our articles on the hacker underground and Anonymous rely on sources that also pseudonymize. Plenty of journalism on gangs and organized crime of various kinds have used pseudonyms to protect the identity of sources. Terrorists and even various religious figures make up new names for themselves pretty regularly, and what their birth names were is often of little relevance to their encyclopedic notability; for many figures of history we have no idea what their birth names were. Various articles on the early history of online communities have cited pseudonymous posts. There is not always a necessity to publicly identify the legal name of someone in order for the information to be pertinent; it simply needs to be used with caution. What I'm seeing here is a generalized "this source must go" suggestion, without identifying any specific "this particular claim is improperly sourced per WP:UNDUE for the following exact reasons" analysis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not confusing anything. TF is pseudonymous. Their sources are just plain anonymous. They don't even have made up names. The majority of this article is sourced from a biased blog that uses nearly 100% totally anonymous sources. Objective3000 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to using torrentfreak.com very sparingly for facts that can be verified elsewhere or for their noteworthy opinion. By the way, "the full name of the managing editor is known", but it's a pseudonym, so we actually have no idea what mad journalistic skillz he has. - MrX 13:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh well. Lots of names people write and publish under are pseudonyms. Eric Corley would still be notable as would 2600: The Hacker Quarterly, and it would still be a reliable source (albeit a not terribly high-quality one, in WP:RS terms) for what it published, even if his legal name had not been made public and his article was at Emmanuel Goldstein (writer).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I think we can agree that TF is not a high-quality source, but usable for some material. Editor discretion is advised. - MrX 19:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are numerous fiction authors that have used nom de plume. But, we know who they are when they become notable. What we have here is an anonymous source that makes reports based on other anonymous reports. And, amazingly, editors here think that’s a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Why? Objective3000 (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(←) Are you daft? Reuters, AP, AFP, NYT et al. run pieces with no author attribution all the time. At least TF stick their nom/nym on it. However, anonymous they're not. They are TorrentFreak, just like nameless staff writers for NYT are NYT. TF quite often cite their sources, such as Chris Dodd, nameless sources like "Netflix" and unnamed officials from the British Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. And yes, we have many sources which "parrot" TF; these are called secondary and tertiary sources, which are most welcome and even preferred. TF is regularly cited in the media[3] (usually by unknown, fly-by-night outfits such as Bloomberg, NBC, The Guardian, the BBC etc.) so can use those when available. -- dsprc [talk] 15:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

First, “are you daft” is a violation of [WP:CIV]]. On the comparison with the NYT, I just looked through today’s and couldn’t find a single story without attribution. The vast majority of TF’s sources are anonymous. When TF is quoted by MSM, they always say “according to”. That is, they are only saying that TF says something is true – not that it is true. Unfortunately, this article appears to take these anonymous sources as true. Third, sources that parrot TF are not sources. They are only copying what TF said, even though it is nearly always from an anonymous source. I would also suggest that sarcastic phrasing rarely convinces. Objective3000 (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it was an unnecessary provocation by Dsprc–but the fact remains that we don't discount sources because we don't like them–each and every one of your arguments are straw-man arguments. If you looked through today's issue of the NYT and didn't find unattributed articles you simply looked through it very badly. P.S. What is MSM? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Just looked again, page-by-page, and can find no unattributed stories in today's Times. Just claiming I made straw-man arguments doesn't make it so. You haven't explained how anything I said is such. Seriously, how can anyone compare a one-subject, anonymous blog that uses anonymous sources to push an extremist view with a publication with 117 Pulitizers? The only organizations that appear to trust TF are tech blogs, pro-piracy sites, and Wikipedia. Objective3000 (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
NYT today Attributed to Reuters, no name – Noone is equating them, just explaining how you are incorrect. As for your statement about who trusts TF, just take a look a few posts up–there are a number of links–maybe you should read these? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I no longer have the paper copy. You haven't explained at all how I am incorrect. I have read the links. Again, they are all sources that say "according to TF" or some other way of saying TF said, not that this is a truth. Seriously, TF has published that TPB is putting servers on drones, an offshore oil platform, in the Swedish Parliament, in North Korea, they are buying their own country, and so much other utter, complete nonsense. Do you actually believe this is a good source? Objective3000 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Ever heard of the Lung-Powered Flying Machine? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
You are actually wasting our time with an image that was printed by mistake in 1934? You can talk to yourself from now on. Objective3000 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't a mistake, it was an April Fools' Joke–just like all the stuff you mentioned was.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the TF statements were NOT April Fool's jokes. And yes, the 1934 image was mistakenly distributed by a German press agency and picked up by papers. Discussion is useless. You are just making stuff up and going back 80 years to find some "error". Objective3000 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, Subway Nudity Possibly O.K. With Everyone. NYT 2010. Also for those articles that weren't April fools' jokes, they are clearly written in a way that says that the claims aren't substantiated. See The Pirate Bay ‘Moves’ to North Korea (Updated). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This is totally off-point. You are deliberately wasting my time. Of course there are April Fools jokes. That has NOTHING to do with the innumerable false statements made by TPB and distributed as truth by TF. And TF fell for this too. You pointed to the update where they admitted the error. I'm not spending any more time looking up your blatantly dishonest refs. Objective3000 (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The updates are all marked as such at the bottom of the page–the original article states that these are claims by TPB–nothing else. You're basing your argument on anecdote.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
NO, they are not. And I see that you have yet another edit-warring warning on another article an hour ago on your Talk, that you have deleted. How many does that make this year? You just falsely claimed this about me a few hours go with another threat. Stop threatening editors. You do not own Wikipedia. Seriously, if someone looks at all the edit-warring warnings you have received, all of which you have deleted, and the threats you have made, a pattern is pretty obvious. We are all volunteers here. Your opinions do not supersede Wikipedia guidelines. Yes, one shouldn't look at past history in general. But, in your case, it is overwhelming. Objective3000 (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
It was a legitimate inquiry; one for which we now have the answer to. Yes, and NYT have a track record of pushing false statements and propaganda to the point of being a journalistic pastime to point it out and poke for brownie points ([4][5][6][7][8]). No publication is perfect; individual articles should be scrutinized no matter who publishes them. It matters not that TF have an opinion; Wikipedia must be neutral, not our sources (a, b, c). You present much opinion, but are sparse with facts or examples - which should be easy coming given alleged "innumerable false statements" (innumerable as in zero?). If one is going to band-about WP:CIV, mayhaps it is best to not attack other editors, as above, whilst doing so (just a thought)? -- dsprc [talk] 01:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Five refs to weird sites? Are you seriously trying to convince us that the NYTimes is not a WP:RS and TF is? Discussion here becomes more and more odd. Objective3000 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
No one ever said NYT aren't RS; only each article be weighed on their own, per good media literacy. But if The Intercept, with award-winning authors and editors; along with Salon, with editorship well regarded; or FAIR [9][10][11][12][13], are to be considered "weird" then it really discounts your position. Still waiting on evidence of those "innumerable false statements." -- dsprc [talk] 03:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Attempts to compare TorrentFreak to actual reputable news organizations is risible. It's a blog by a person who is obviously connected to TPB; it's not journalism and it's not scholarly research. Clearly there is no consensus that TorrentFreak passes all, or even most, of our basic tests for reliable sources. Since other good sources occasionally cite TorrentFreak, those would be the sources we should use. - MrX 02:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
And evidence for not being journalism is? TF are more than occasionally cited[14], but yes, tertiary sources are what should be used, with proper attribution to TF in prose. So:

What SMcCandlish, dsprc and CFCF said. TF is doing real journalism, investigative journalism. Like it or not, it's the best there is for the stuff they're doing. They do have opinion based pieces, but they are marked as such. Articles get updated when factual errors come to light. The suggested issues are far from problematic knowing the stuff they cover and how they operate. I know they do their homework: they sent a fully written article regarding Wikipedia to Jimmy Wales himself. Because he said they were "barking up the wrong tree" and were misreading the situation, the article never got published. So yes, there is editorial control, they talk to sources and related subjects, and sit on already written pieces even though all public evidence suggests it's correctness. What SMcCandlish, dsprc and CFCF said. --Ondertitel (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Calling up TPB and asking them what to say is not investigative journalism. This assumes they aren't TPB themselves. Again, virtually all their sources are anonymous - as they are themselves, and they whole-heartedly take one side, and only one side, on the issue at hand. "The best there is" is not good enough for an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Every single thing you said is wrong. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant. There is simply no way that I can debate such a substantive argument. Objective3000 (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
All those arguments were individually refuted earlier in this discussion. Repeating yourself won't make them less wrong. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
1. What I said was never answered. 2. You provided no argument whatsoever. 3. I see you were just warned at AN3 for your behavior here and elsewhere. One would have hoped that you would have taken this to heart and attempted to follow the rules henceforth. I did not make the complaint over which you were just warned. I have never made a complaint. But, you will most likely receive another complaint, and another complaint until you realize that you do not own this encyclopedia.Objective3000 (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Entirely unrelated, and that speaks to gaming to system to win cheap point in a content dispute. I have never broken any rule on this page or any other. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Repeating yourself won't make them less wrong. If only you would follow your own advice, as this is all that can be said about everything you've done throughout every discussion about TPB. —烏Γ (kaw), 07:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about; is likely why you fail to offer evidence to back your claims. TF is repeatedly cited in scholarly works [16]; your point is moot. Please confine these other personal gripes to the respective User_talk namespace. Stop trolling. -- dsprc [talk] 04:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Circles. This has been responded to by multiple editors. And please be civil. Personal attacks are not convincing. Objective3000 (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
And TF have also been cited by mainstream television networks.[17] Positions based on personal opinions or conjecture lacking even the most basic of evidence aren't particularly convincing either. Either way, it's a dead horse. -- dsprc [talk] 12:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
TF Reports, according to TF, according to pie wrassy (sic) TF, according to pie racecy (sic), TF says, a freak accident. Did you read any of these "cites"? Just giving results of searches is useless. Mainstream sources only say that TF claims something. Wikipedia actually takes these claims as truth. And, it is not conjecture to say that nearly all TF articles use anonymous sources, and that TF is a one-subject, highly biased blog. It is a fan site for TPB and other piracy sites. (As this article has become.) Objective3000 (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) The "pies" are from closed captioning broadcast with original airing. The "freak accident" was a one-off (again criticisms are based off ignorance of subject; WP:CIR applies, but you're just nitpicking ((WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)) and grasping at strawmen here). {{citation needed}}, WP:RS/N, WP:DR. -- dsprc [talk] 14:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You simply make assertions, mouth insults, and link to guidelines with no explanation as to how they apply to an edit. Objective3000 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
It is evident by your statements that you did not understand how Internet Archive's television system works (which is perfectly fine, most people don't). Yet despite this ignorance you decide to baselessly criticize it anyway. I fail to see how pointing this out is insulting. You're perfectly welcome to nitpick my sources but, please do try to present at least one of your own to back your unfounded claims. -- dsprc [talk] 15:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a general misunderstanding about reliable sources. The fact that a source is quoted often by major publications and networks does not make it a reliable source. For example, you can find thousands of instances of respected news sources quoting the KKK and Al Qaeda. The KKK and Al Qaeda are reliable sources of what the KKK and Al Qaeda claim. But, that doesn’t make their claims reliable or encyclopedic. Merely giving a link to a Google search to prove how often a source is quoted does not make the source reliable. TF is quoted often by the media because they are the only source. But, the respected media always uses qualifying words to indicate that the quote is only a claim. Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Noone is arguing that it isn't biased–but bias ≠ unreliability. Every single argument against TF that has been brought forth here has been proven wrong (see comment by dsprc). You have chosen to completely ignore that and if there is any circular argument here it is not from the side defending TF as a WP:RS. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Every single argument has been asserted to be wrong, not proven. For example, dsprc stated "Pseudonymous authors: Authors have names and are known." These sources say otherwise:

  • " When TorrentFreak’s editor, who writes under the pseudonym “Ernesto Van Der Sar,” caught wind of the requests, he posted a story Sunday accusing NBCUniversal of trying to “censor” news stories about leaked films."
    — International Business Times

  • "Usually piracy doesn’t take hold without a high-quality version, according to the editor of the file-sharing news site TorrentFreak, who goes by the pseudonym Ernesto Van Der Sar. "
    — Bloomberg Business

  • "Of course, some people don't pay at all. And when it comes to House, that's quite a lot of people, says "Ernesto Van Der Sar," the pseudonym of a Netherlands academic who tracks illegal downloads on BitTorrent."
    — NPR

  • "Usually piracy doesn't take hold without a high- quality version, according to the editor of the file-sharing news site TorrentFreak, who goes by the pseudonym Ernesto Van Der Sar. "
    — Ad Age

Of course, this is evidence of WP:USEBYOTHERS, which should be considered when evaluating sources. - MrX 14:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Authors have pseudonymous names which they are known by. That statement is correct – you are misrepresenting his statement.CFCF 💌 (email) 14:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If someone responds to an assertion that an author uses a pseudonym by writing "Authors have names and are known", then it's reasonable to conclude that that comment was intended as a refutation. That's not a misrepresentation, and this isn't a game of GOTCHA!.- MrX 14:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Well then it was simply a misunderstanding, I thought it was pretty clear that was what he meant.CFCF 💌 (email) 14:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Take this bollocks to WP:RS/N and be done with it. -- dsprc [talk] 15:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
What I meant was we know who the authors are and there is a byline for each piece providing attribution; we know which publication it is from and where the URI is located. It is not some random pastebin dumped on the net. While they may have a nom de plume, they're not anonymous. -- dsprc [talk] 16:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
This article is about TPB. In the TF articles used as refs in this article, the source of the info is nearly always anonymous. About half of this encyclopedia article is based on anonymous sources via a biased blog using fake names. Objective3000 (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
So? CFCF 💌 📧 22:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Words fail me. Objective3000 (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A RSN discussion was started, but it doesn't indicate what corresponding content is in dispute. Everything sourced to torrentfreak? --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That has been a consistent problem through out the history of this talk page. Every time any specific complaint about content has been brought up, a lazy search has found plenty of RS sources that can be used along side the TF one. In many of those cases the RS uses the TF article themselves as source, or brings it up as a place where an interview was published (common practice in news media). Belorn (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
This is simply false and the ongoing problem. Last time this happened, you provided four additional sources to TF. All four quoted TF. That's not five sources. It's one source that uses anonymous sources. Objective3000 (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If those who feel Torrentfreak is not RS, there is a simple way you can go forward without a changed consensus and which is still not disruptive. Go to the article, find content which is supported only by the TF article, and go and find additional sources that also supports it. As an example of how easy this is, here is a diff that only took a few min to make. Belorn (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop accusing other editors of disruptive editing simply because they want unbiased, non-anonymous sources. Objective3000 (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The RSN-discussion clearly stated that TF was reliable. You are being very disruptive in ignoring that. CFCF 💌 📧 18:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Please stop falsely accusing other editors of disruptive editing. Objective3000 (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Then stop complaining that we use TF as a source. Either get better sources or stop being disruptive.CFCF 💌 📧 04:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Link to the archived RS/N discussion in favor of TorrentFreak. They are actually criticizing other media themselves: [18][19]. --Ondertitel (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet another example of TF bias and poor reporting. Objective3000 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I've been adding onion links to all pages which have them. However it's been reverted on this page alone. I would like to keep it please. Deku-shrub (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Onion is on the blacklist. That's why you had to enclose the url in <nowiki> tags. You shouldn't be adding it anywhere. The blacklist is there for a reason. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
If you have been adding Onion links in this manner to other articles, I suggest you quickly revert them. Objective3000 (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The onion link is not appropriate for this article and most other articles. This was discussed at some length a few months ago [20].- MrX 17:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
If you have to add a nowiki tag to get the page to save, you know that the link is on the blacklist.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@Deku-shrub: You have discussed the additions of .onion links several times on different venues since you knew you could not add them because they were blacklisted. You have been explained over and over that these should not be added and why. Now I learn that you intentionally evade the blacklist to add them anyway? Can you please make sure all of them are removed? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I have removed many instances of this blacklist evasion. Deku-shrub, I have seen you doing this on other sites as well, and I would suggest that you stop that practice. We have a blacklist for a reason, and a whitelist for a reason. If you cannot convince editors, or the community, that something is needed or should be linked, then evading that consensus is disruptive. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed several last year. But, he kept adding them. Objective3000 (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
What in heaven is an onion link?81.107.245.123 (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
See .onion. The onion version of the Pirate Bay site is accessible only via Tor (anonymity network). Links to onion sites are banned by Wikipedia's guidelines on external links.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Website offline - October 2015

The TPB website has been offline for around three days, with sources saying that it is a hosting problem at the server end.[21] Since it hasn't picked up much reliable sourcing it isn't worth adding to the article at the moment, but it is worth noting that the site is down.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

By the time you posted, the site was back up. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You're right, it is back up now, although I was still having difficulty accessing the site earlier today.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Re this edit: At the time of writing, the site is not offline and this source does not say that the site is offline. The site is up and down like a yo-yo however. It isn't worth covering outages unless they are at least 24 hours long and mentioned in multiple reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. However, the note is clearly not working so I've tweaked it accordingly.[22] Please feel free to tweak it further. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

April 2016

The site is offline at the moment.[23] This isn't unusual and it doesn't need to be mentioned in the article unless it is for considerably longer. Here is a screenshot of the current version of the site, which says "because the site uses CloudFlare's Always Online™ technology you can continue to surf a snapshot of the site."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The outage is at least 36 hours already and they apparently moved to a new domain again, .ae this time. I suggest updating. Brandmeistertalk 08:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Some caution needed here. Every time TPB goes offline, some people find versions which may be unofficial mirrors. At best these sites are unofficial versions, and at worst they may be malware sites. Much as some people here dislike TorrentFreak, they would be able to confirm whether the .ae (United Arab Emirates) version) is genuine. Numerous media sources believed that the .cr (Costa Rica) version was official in December 2014 and it wasn't.[24]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
That's according to the Science & Technology News website as of yesterday. However, .ae doesn't seem to work right now. Brandmeistertalk 09:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
There are umpteen lookalike sites which are unofficial mirrors. The mainstream media isn't always reliable here. TorrentFreak can get a direct reply from the people at TPB, and at the moment all they are saying is that the site has technical problems.[25]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's back at thepiratebay.se. According to TorrentFreak "Update April 18: TPB is back after two days. A big piece of equipment broke, and it took some time to get it replaced."[26] This probably isn't notable enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Feel free to add a sentence or two about the domain now belonging to Sweden. There is no (reliable) source that states that TPB has a new official domain and we are not a link directory.- MrX 11:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The web page http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/hovratten-piratebayse-ska-agas-av-staten/ is in Swedish, so off to Google Translate for me.[27] The most important part is "Domen har inte vunnit laga kraft och kan komma att överklagas", "The judgment is not final and can be appealed." There is an ongoing battle over this issue, and the court in May 2016 ruled that the domain names Thepiratebay.se and Piratebay.se should be transferred to state ownership. At the time of writing, thepiratebay.se is redirecting to thepiratebay.org and the website is live without any problems. However, this isn't in the source mentioned above. There is some English language coverage on TorrentFreak here, but it doesn't mention .org either.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Editor Concus Cretus is adding a link to the first sentence of the lede to a two paragraph article of questionable use that had no cites at the time the link was added. As the very first link in this article, that would not seem appropriate or useful. Thoughts? Objective3000 (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Create an entry on it at Wiktionary, bring [[BitTorrent index] up for deletion per WP:NOTDIC and WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a bit annoying. He has reverted again and refused to Talk, or, to be kind, doesn't know how. He is in technical vio of the spirit of 3RR. Someone else should revert. Objective3000 (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
OK. Don't like to do this but, AfD at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BitTorrent_index. Objective3000 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that there is an AfD that will probably succeed, he has changed the link to an internal link. I've only been here a few years -- but, I can't remember ever seeing an internal link in the first sentence of an article. I don't understand the purpose. Particularly since this is not the history/origin of the site, or is a part of the trial. It is misleading as to history. Objective3000 (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose. Particularly since this is not the history/origin of the site, or is a part of the trial. It is misleading as to history. I'm not sure I understand at all what you are saying. Can you please indicate relevenat policies/guidelines, sources, sections of this and other articles, etc? Anything that will make it clearer what you mean. --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Nonprofit organization?

This 2015 article says that the Pirate Bay is a nonprofit organization.

Does anyone know about the legal structure of whatever organization is the Pirate Bay? Is this a nonprofit organization? PCMag seems like a reliable source. I understand that this organization has a lot going on. Should the Wikipedia article say that TPB is nonprofit? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

No, TPB is not registered as a non-profit. Objective3000 (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what? How does registration have anything to do with this? Is it registered as for profit then? PCMag is a credible source for it being non-profit. Distrait cognizance (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
In addition the source says that it is registered as a non-profit…Distrait cognizance (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
PCMag just copied that from the TPB site. That site is not a reliable source, even for itself. Further, it says you can contact them -- but the link they provide gets a 404 error. Also, they are not in the Seychelles. They also claimed to be a non-profit during the trial -- and the judge ruled that they were not a non-profit. This has been discussed in the past. You cannot state that they are a non-profit when there is no proof that they are. Objective3000 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is a source vs. your mumbo-jumbo. We stick with the sources. Distrait cognizance (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Controversial/disputed claims cannot be included in an infobox.
Objective3000 — if you revert again I will report this to AN/I. It is disruptive, and you are aware of it. Distrait cognizance (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow, a threat? Go right ahead and report me -- but beware of boomerangs. You keep making a change to text labeled with a warning that has consensus without gaining consensus for the change. See WP:BRD. Objective3000 (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Since the veracity of this information is questionable (or at least questioned), it would probably make sense to find at least one additional independent source to corroborate it. ANI is not a viable option for resolving this minor content dispute. See WP:DR.- MrX 20:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
He took this to ANI twelve minutes after my initial revert with no attempt to gain consensus, and no warning on my Talk. Objective3000 (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no need for a warning on your talk if you can be shown to have seen this warning (and you also seem to have beat me to responding before I could warn you). The time-frame is irrelevant, the act of reverting in the face of source vs. no source is disruptive. Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I request that another editor revert to consensus during discussion. This was discussed in depth in the past. An infobox should not contain disputed claims. Objective3000 (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
So far there is no source stating any dispute over non-profit status since at least 2010. Current status as of the 2015 article seems to be non-profit. Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? [28]- MrX 21:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Rightyho, thats a source. What about adding the status "disputed", with some clarification down in the body? Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I think adding that it's disputed to the body is a good idea. I'm indifferent as to whether we should leave it out of the infobox or add "commercial = non-profit (disputed)" to the infobox.- MrX 21:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I've done some minor additions in the history section, however the article is fairly outdated overall. Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As stated by an admin in your ANI, your claim that you have a good source is false. Demanding that I prove a negative makes no sense. Objective3000 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
My two cents: this has been discussed before and TPB is too opaque to say what its finances are, and nor are the sources very reliable. All we know for sure is that TPB has gone back to using its original .org domain. Also, the infobox should not contain statements that are likely to be challenged.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I think leaving it out is best. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
If the infobox includes a mention that the nature of the organization is disputed I don't see why we should leave it out of the infobox. There is absolutely no policy that dictates that infoboxes shouldn't include information that is prone to be challenged, if it is possible to present it neutrally. Distrait cognizance (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The infobox does NOT publically say it is disputed. It was a claim made ages ago, and after an audit, the courts ruled that the claim that it was non-profit was false. There is no evidence that TPB has filed as a non-profit since. As was stated in the ANI, "non-profit" is a legal term. This was all discussed and consensus was to leave the claim out. It shouldn't be anywhere, and your last edit to the mainspace is yet additional disruptive editing. Objective3000 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The infobox allows only a simple yes/no statement for profit or nonprofit. Since the sourcing is weak and likely to lead to disputes, it is better to leave it out and to cover it in the text of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No, the infobox allows for the text "non-profit - disputed". And there is very strong sourcing for that. Distrait cognizance (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
What you call a "very strong source," a sysop at your initiated ANI called a "weak claim based on a weak claim." Objective3000 (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
There are strong sources for the statement that TBP say they are run by a non-profit, and there are strong sources stating that this is in dispute. Hence strong sources for "non-profit - disputed", which fits nicely in the infobox. Please read what other people write before responding — otherwise you may cause people to dislike and ignore you. Distrait cognizance (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
What strong source says they are a non-profit? Objective3000 (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? Did you read what I wrote? Distrait cognizance (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Um, you're the one that just used "strong sources" as an argument. So, I asked for such. Now you're suggesting this is irrelevant. I read what you wrote several times, and at this point, I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Objective3000 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Then can you explain to me why it is relevant which sources state they are non-profit, when we are talking about the fact that "they say they are non-profit"? There is no controversy at all about that statement, including the fact that it has been disputed. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. There is no controversy or dispute. They claimed to be non-profit, went to trial, the government ran an audit, and the judge ruled that they were NOT non-profit. They appealed the trial many times, lost all appeals, and went to prison. The sentence was contingent on the non-profit vs. profit status. Dispute over. This was all discussed at length and a consensus was formed. You have said nothing to change that consensus. A sysop at your ANI said that the burden of proof is on you as you wish to change consensus, and that the source that you provided fell way short of a rationale for such a change. Objective3000 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no dispute that there is a dispute, but there is clear consensus that it is disputed — and AN/I does not concern itself whatsoever with content disputes. Distrait cognizance (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
You're the one that took it to ANI. The Mafia article does not say: "Social Club - disputed." The Jesse James article does not say: "Freedom Fighter - disputed." The article on the sham charities: Reynolds Cancer Charities, doesn't say "nonprofit - disputed." The courts made a ruling. The dispute is over. Wikipedia does not put misleading, disproved claims in infoboxes. Objective3000 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Ever heard of reductio in absurdum — it's a logical fallacy, and your argument holds no merit. Here we have clear evidence of a dispute, and a rather high profile one at that. Your examples are silly as there are no modern reputable sources stating that the Mafia is a "social club", or that this a controversy about it — stop it with the nonsense. Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course I have heard of reductio -- and it is a valid, logical device. Yes, my examples are silly. As silly as the example of an encyclopedia using a self-serving claim from a site that the courts ruled to be patently false. The KKK can claim that they are a friendly, neighborhood watch on their site. That doesn't mean that WP should put it in an infobox on the KKK because they claim it. Objective3000 (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a Telstra recording

I have a recording from the 1800 number Telstra provides. How do I upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:A4EE:C900:2974:32DA:BE21:965B (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In December 2016, the Australian ISP Telstra blocked access to TPB.[29] I'm not sure what the phone message says (the number is 1800 086 346), but it isn't really necessary to add it to the article and it would be copyrighted, so it would require fair use. If you like, you could upload it to Vocaroo and post the link here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Uploading it somewhere else and linking would not get around copyright law. Objective3000 (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, but I can't see much harm in hearing what Telstra says about this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The full ruling from the Federal Court of Australia on 15 December 2016 is here. As usual with legal rulings, it goes on at great length and the Too long; didn't read version is that TPB and similar sites are considered to be involved in contributing to copyright infringement. Justice Nicholas said "I am satisfied that the facilitation of the infringement of copyright is flagrant, and that the operator of the TPB sites has shown a blatant and wilful disregard for the rights of copyright owners." The Pirate Bay is dealt with in sections 88 to 98. It includes various proxies of TPB that are listed in a table at the bottom of the ruling. While these sites are superficially similar to TPB, they are not official versions of the site, which is why they are not given as URLs in the Wikipedia article. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 23:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Would it not be a good idea in the info box to link to the site using https instead of plain http? 80.111.160.174 (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: good job. And speaking of my bot, feel free to comment here. --bender235 (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on The Pirate Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Carl Lundström from infobox

The deletion of Lundström from the infobox contradicts the body of the article which states: "...Piratbyrån spokesman Tobias Andersson acknowledged that "without Lundström's support, Pirate Bay would not have been able to start." He was also convicted along with the others. Certainly he was as much as a creator as Sunde who claimed to only be a spokesman. This is long-standing consensus and should not be deleted without discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The website infobox section he's named in is "Created by". The court case didn't consider who created the site: it was about aiding and abetting in copyright infringement. The site already existed (2003-2004) before Lundström got involved. The court judgment does not mention Andersson's claim.
Looking at the tasks they had, the prosecutor's section of the judgment says that Sunde "entered the picture for the purpose of designing the new website", "was also asked to design the search function", "involved in the advertising sales operation".
Likewise of Lundström, it says that he "discussed an international launch of the website" in 2005, "supply additional computers and operating capital, and to continue to provide Internet access", "was in a position of influence with respect to the future of the filesharing service", "is the host owner/external partner who would own a certain proportion of the newly-formed company", "involved himself in the actual operation by making proposals for the development of new services".
Lundström should be removed from the "Created by" section of the infobox. 2001:BC8:4400:2100:0:0:1D:D03 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You are using a very narrow definition of created. According to your definition, Sunde shouldn’t be in the infobox. Indeed, perhaps all three would be removed as Piratbyrån created the site a year before they were involved. A Piratbyrån spokesman said Lundström was a part of the start. Since, Lundström funded the project, is the largest shareholder, and was convicted with the others; it makes sense to include him as one of the principles. Objective3000 (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Creating is very different from operating or being responsible of. Best Buy didn't create Napster despite the considerable investment. Steve Ballmer didn't create Microsoft despite running the company for over a decade. Sunde's website creation tasks however should certainly put him as a creator in the infobox. If the infobox field in question was about something else, such as "Principles", you might have a point. 2001:BC8:4400:2100:0:0:1D:D03 (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Where is your RS that states Sunde was an author of the site? He denied this himself under oath. The site was created by Piratbyrån. That is well established. The people in that list were not creators under the definition that you wish to use. What is your purpose in removing a person that the actual creators state was at the start and that, if not for him, the site may not have ever existed? This sounds like cleansing the article of an unpopular name. We don't do that. Objective3000 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

While I might no recall all the past discussions and the level of consensus on the various subtopics, we've agreed to only have one official link per NOT and EL. If someone wants to attempt to change that consensus, please consider reviewing all the past discussions, summarize the relevant agreements, and give a case for why we should reconsider those agreements. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The only official link as of August 2017 is thepiratebay.org. There are approximately half a zillion unofficial mirrors, but these are ruled out by WP:EL. They usually aren't up to date or accurate versions of the official site, and may contain malware, phishing scams etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Please update the existing whitelisting if there is reasonable evidence for the official site. Many mirrors would be up for blacklisting (on meta if they contain malware, are phishing, etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah sorry this is all my fault -- I included the official .onion link (not mirror, actual official) however, as Ronz pointed out, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. --Nanite (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

information that should be added to the infobox

the most reliable access to the pirate bay is through the tor network should be included in the infobox, at the very beginning of this page because the pirate bay has been under attack from governments and hackers, there should be a link to a reliable functional pirate bay browser that supports the organization's mission. tor supports the pirate bay's mission, and should be included inside the infobox, not at the end of the article

torproject.org Hmazuji (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC) hmazuji Oct 06, 2017

This has been discussed at length and the consensus is against this, in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Objective3000 (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, links to .onion sites are generally discouraged on Wikipedia, and sometimes prohibited. For most practical purposes, the official link to the site is thepiratebay.org. It isn't up to Wikipedia to tell people how to get around government imposed blocking, although they can soon find out how to do this if they're sufficiently interested.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Pirate_Bay/Archive_9&oldid=837637917"