Jump to content

Talk:The Pirate Bay/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

info request for the article

Does anyone here know about the different coloured skulls found next to certain user names on TPB? (eg: Pink = "Trusted", Green = "VIP", Blue = "Moderator") What do they mean? What is the difference between these designations? How does one acquire these skulls?

If so, could you perhaps create a sub-section in the article about this? 99.229.48.235 (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources cover this topic. When RS cover it, we'll cover it here. --Lexein (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Pirate Bay "moves to the cloud"

This story is in the news. After assuring everyone that they were not hosted at PRQ, this is interesting. The site is still coming from 194.71.107.15, which is in Germany.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

bbc is a good source, and this would improve the "Technical details" section. Currently, the section is a bit dated and could be well improved, but cautions is needed. The bbc article uses references and citations heavily, and thus we need take care what the article actually say, and what it claim others have said. Should be worth taking a look and see what other news sites has to say too. Belorn (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
“Cloud” is a marketing term, not a technical term. It means whatever any marketer wants it to mean, including time-sharing, web-serving, data-base serving, file-storage, combination client-server apps, and flexible virtual private servers; all of which existed long before marketers started using the term. Even if the term meant something, TPB has made numerous claims about moving their servers in the past, with no evidence this has actually happened. Sounds like more hype.74.108.115.191 (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with this revert: It's apparently a WP:COI edit, no obvious way to uncontroversially verify it, and no sources which don't echo the TPB press release. It can conceivably go back in when RS vet the claims; for us to do it would be OR. --Lexein (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
As 74.108.115.191 pointed out, TPB's press releases about how the site is hosted have tended to be many and varied. This, coupled with the fact that a press release is a WP:SPS, means that some caution is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I too thought press released was regarded as SPS and mentioned in the policy, but looking through the policy I cant find it being mentioned. Anyway, the revert looks okey. The second statement is not support by the source, and the first statement, while supported by an reliable source (bbc), is still problematic since the source offers no unique interpertation. Looking around, a much better source is arstechnica article, which add their own unique interpretation in a very third-party reliable source way. Other similar articles are: mashable, ibtimes, and extremetech, all which their own interpretations. Together with the bbc and cnet sources, we should have plenty enough to add a few lines that are indeed verifiable :). I would do this myself, but currently i dont trust that any sources (no matter who made it or what they said) will be honored by 74.108.115.191, and thus I leave that work to be done by someone else, whoever dare to take that fight. Belorn (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Minor question: in what way is Techatron connected to the Pirate Bay? is Techatron.net a pirate bay support site (I could not see it say that on their site), is it built by one of the the pirate bay founders? In what direct relation do the two site has which each other? Still, focusing on the content and not on the user, a section built on a reliable source doing their own interpertation and not just echoing what other say would be good if written (and not reverted!). Belorn (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the IP's derisive revert edit summary: Techatron.net is just a random "news" blog (uncited by others, so not RS for our purposes) which User:Techtron was trying to promote as a Wikipedia source, hence my COI comment. Techatron has nothing to do with TPB.
  • The addition's content was much the same as the other claims+conjecture in other sources, and that was what I was saying could eventually go back if RS publish a technical verification of TPB's claims, rather than conjecture. There has been no such analysis worthy of the name, in any of the above linked sources, not even Ars Technica. So ---
  • IMHO, stating the barest facts: "In 2012, TPB announced again that it was moving servers, to what it termed "the cloud, hosted by several providers."[1][2] would be fine. Anything more than that would strike me as promo, and hardly verifiable at the moment. --Lexein (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing out the COI. I did not realize the issue what promoting itself as source. That is indeed a COI issue. As for a technical verification by a third-party source, could I get an example of that? I can not find any indication of it being a requirement by the verifiability or IRS. Thinking about it, setups which is either technical, legal or structurally made by a private or proprietary entity is highly unlikely to have been verified by a third-party source. Looking around at articles like microsoft, ibm, intel, and I cant find a single one. All the sources describe what they heard or makes interpretations of it, but none that I can see has that actually made their own verification of the facts. If either of those article has such type of source, could someone identify one for me so to point out how such a source should look like? Belorn (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
My "derisive" edit summary was not aimed at TPB. It was aimed at a blogger making his sole edits to WP to promote his own blog. Sorry, thought that was obvious. As for Belorn's derisive comment: "i dont trust that any sources (no matter who made it or what they said) will be honored by 74.108.115.191," is uncalled for. This particular WP article is known for heavy reliance on biased sources including pro-piracy blogs. And, even the more reliable sources are, in most cases, merely reporting TPB statements, which are famously unreliable. So yes, I have problems with many of the sources used in this particular article. If WP is to be respected, reliance on primary sources that are based on self-serving statements from people convicted of related crimes ought be avoided. Just my humble opinion.74.108.115.191 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I know you were talking about the Techatron editor - just a bit bitey, is what I meant. And yes, Belorn should have checked his remarks about you, too. I think there are some raw nerves about the commercial/noncommercial discussions. So we'll all slow down talking about editors, me included. --Lexein (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I dont sugarcoat things. Doing a edit with incorporates say 10 sources to give a complete picture of what reliable sources has said is hard and takes effort and time. Once burned (like the previous discussions), twice would be folly. I happy support the edit like lexein's above suggestion, but I wont do it myself. Belorn (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Then next time, I suggest that you wait for consensus. At the time you made that edit, there was a dispute and no one else was expressing support for such an edit. None of your work was lost. If a consensus was later realized, you could have used relevant parts of that edit.74.108.115.191 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
On verifiability of TPB’s claims, I don’t see the relevance to articles on Microsoft, Intel and IBM. If every person at IBM is sentenced to prison, and then every person at IBM denies they are connected to IBM, and further claims are made by IBM, only they are all anonymous because no one admits to be operating IBM; then I think the IBM article would also require better sources.74.108.115.191 (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • I neglected to state: my first problem with this press release is that it's not from any of the known notable TPB people we've heard of before. In my mind, this makes it more important to minimize what we report (as example above), and await independent RS for the grander claims. 10 sources don't help much, when the main source for them all is an essentially anonymous press release.
  • To answer Belorn's earlier question to me about technical analysis, I look forward to further work by the reclusive l33t5 at Brooklyn Vegan . But seriously, at least TechNewsWorld bothered to get quotes from cloud service providers Hytrust and Neuralytix, and a lawyer. That's some followup. --Lexein (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Hytrust and Neuralytix are hyping this for their own sales purposes. There is nothing preventing TPB from quickly moving to different servers without some new technology paradigm, other than the fact that very few hosts would take them. Since they don’t actually store the files themselves, their data requirements are small. They only have 4,000,000 torrents. That’s a tiny amount of data in today’s terms.74.108.115.191 (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Historically, reporters are supposed to get quotes from sources they consider reliable/knowledgeable. That TNW did is good, not suspect. Those two, Hytrust and Neuralytix, weren't "hyping" any more than any other two random sources TechNewsWorld might have called for comment. Their statements were general, and happen to provide independent support for parts of claims made in TPB's press release. That's something none of the other news outlets bothered to get: comment from independent sources. --Lexein (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, reporters are supposed to get quotes from sources they consider reliable/knowledgeable. But, we have started to use the term reporters very loosely as blogs proliferate. The article stated, “The Pirate Bay did not respond to our request for further details.” That is, they have no direct info to report at all. So, lacking anything to report, they called up two guys they knew in the server business that use the term ‘’cloud’’, and asked for some sort of comment. They received comments that were clearly self-serving (yes our services are useful) and without any indication that they had any idea what TPB was actually doing, if anything. Then they asked a lawyer for a technical response. This is a fluff piece repeating some history and quoting people with no connection to the question at hand. Sorry, seems awfully weak for an encyclopedia ref. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Setting aside conjecture: Neither contacted source said or implied "our", as you allege. Nobody but Torrentfreak (TF) had any "direct" info, other than the (somewhat useless) blog post at TPB, and its copy at the TPB Facebook page. TPB didn't respond to anybody but TF, so don't single out Technewsworld as somehow lacking. Rather than pad with lots of old news, as every other news outlet did, TNW got some informed opinion. As for "fluff", that word applies to every other vapid echo-of-TF-plus-old-news linked in this discussion, including the BBC, but not so much to the TNW piece. Sorry you don't see it that way. --Lexein (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I did not single out Technewsworld. They had the article you linked to, so that is the article I talked about. I heartily agree that “fluff” and “vapid echo-of-TF-plus-old-news” applies to all the other sources and am glad to see you use these words. Rather than singling-out TNW, I was giving my reasons for including them as there was no indication that the two guys they talked to had any info at all about what TPB may or may not have done or about TPB’s operation. OTOH, they both use the term “cloud” in their marketing and saying anything indicating the usefulness of cloud-anything is, therefore, self-serving. (Even though it appears that neither company’s use of the term applies to technology that TPB could use.) I know lots of guys in the business too. But, I wouldn’t write an article on TPB going to the “cloud” quoting two random guys in the business with no info about TPB. The fact is that TPB makes lots of claims, many quite absurd. They get reported in scores of blogs as if they are “The Truth.” And, we don’t even know the identity of the person making these claims. It is Wikipedia’s reliability that we should worry about. An encyclopedia should not use anonymous sources fluffed up by blogs using quotes from people with no indication that they have any knowledge behind the claims.74.108.115.191 (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, at least we're close to the same page on this. As news sources about this press release and their discussion of its meaning and applicability of its subject, I rank the others at a 3/10, and the TNW piece at 5/10, for the reasons we've both mentioned. There are two main subject areas: TPB & cloud. I do not disagree that the TNW sources had no extra direct info about TPB. But they had direct info about the topic area of cloud usage and implementation, and its implications, and I call that relevant discussion of the topic, worth points in my book. --Lexein (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Lexein, that do clear it up a bit. Independent verifiability sounded way to impossible requirement, but when there are signs of clear uncertainty (like, the fact that it is some unknown party who made the claim), it is sound to at least give it some time. I should note that even my local newspaper did bring a article on the subject, and reading it on all basically all news sites focused on IT (slashdot, hackernews, local IT magazines and it newspaper), it does feel a bit odd that Wikipedia dont have any mentioning of it at all. In the end, I will support either having a small mentioning of it, or just giving it some time and see what more reliable sources has to say. Belorn (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Glad you're ok with waiting a bit, and keeping the mention small. --Lexein (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

TorrentFreak as a reliable source

Angbor, in his recent edit, and others, claim that the TorrentFreak blog is a reliable source. Let us examine:

  • TF very rarely sites sources. It merely claims facts without attribution.
  • TF hides its identity from Whois.
  • TF contributors and owners use aliases. There is no public knowledge of the owners.
  • TF stories are all pro-piracy. There is zero balance.
  • TF regularly makes claims against third parties without any evidence, attribution, or sources.
  • TF claims to know the reason behind all TPB outages immediately after the outages, even though no one knows the people currently behind TPB.

It appears that TF fails all tests of WP:RS. Please, let us find neutral, reliable sources for an encyclopedia. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

TorrentFreak only fails your subset of, and misrepresentation of, "tests of RS". Here are corrections for each false assertion above:
  • TF very rarelyquite often cites sources, anonymous or named. It merelyoccasionally claims facts without attribution. When they don't attribute, it's quite annoying, and I tend not to cite those articles.
  • TF hides its identity from Whois as do many, many small companies of all varieties, as a commonly accepted practice, for a variety of perfectly legitimate reasons.
  • TF contributors and owners use aliases as do authors and editors at other "insider" news blogs (nearly all editorials in all newspapers are entirely anonymous, by comparison).. There is no well documented public knowledge of the owners. See TorrentFreak for RS sources of ownership/authorship.
  • TF stories are all pro-piracy. There is zero balance. all pro-torrent-use and pro-sharing. Some of their authors write some editorial/articles from a pro-piracy, or anti-excessive-copyright-enforcement stance. Their guest authors frequently espouse explicit pro-piracy or anti-piracy viewpoints.
  • TF regularly makes claims against third partieswithout any evidence, attribution, or sources.[citation needed]
  • TF claims to know the reason behind all TPB outages immediately after the outages, even though no one knows the people currently behind TPB.in a timely way, via IRC, email, and Twitter contact with the operators, with frequent updates, for the stated purpose of killing false rumors. In this way, they sometimes act as a news conduit for TPB operators. We editors of this article have slowed down on eagerly reporting every word, in these situations. See Talk, above.
--Lexein (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Re this edit. TorrentFreak is a reliable source for outages and blocks, and is often quoted in the mainstream media. The founder of TF is Ernesto Van Der Sar, which is a pseudonym. There is an interview with him here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur with Ianmacm. IP 74.108.115.191 (anonymous, I note with sardonic smirk). TorrentFreak is considered a domain-expert site, frequently cited by other mainstream media (BBC, ITV, The Register, The Inquirer, CNET, Wired, Network World, etc., etc.) If TorrentFreak is good enough for them, they're good enough for us. As for identities, see the TorrentFreak article. Where possible, I and others have used the author's real name in inline citations in this article. Your ongoing campaign against cited material here and in The Pirate Bay trial and forum shopping, obvious in your edit history, indicate a strong POV which does not serve you well. Attempting to blanket disqualify a consensus-qualified source is a common tactic to steer an article toward a POV. Watch it. Your claims in edit summaries are incorrect, POV and go against informed consensus here and at WP:RSN. If you continue to delete cited nontrivial content against the consensus of editors here, you could be blocked, or topic-banned from articles about filesharing. --Lexein (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
TorrentFreak is not a "consensus-qualified source". This has been to RSN twice before, with limited input from disinterested observers. It is considered a reliable source in some contexts but not others. The only clear agreement was, if editors can find a better source that reports the same information, use that instead, to avoid disruption. — ThePowerofX 09:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Ernesto van der Sar is a pseudonym, but demanding his home address, phone number and shoe size before believing anything that he says is unfair. The BBC often asks him for an opinion, eg here and here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
ThePowerofX: input from disinterested observers is good: no axes to grind. Yes? --Lexein (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
As with any source, context is the key word in deciding reliability. In the context of two know proxies already verifiable known, the news that they have been blocked sound as something TF could easy be reliable cited for. a zdnet article talks about it too (however not in english), so there a question if we want to use TF which is in english, or zdnet which is not (policy say we should favor english sources over non-english ones). Belorn (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Slight correction: guideline (not policy), favors an English-language source over a foreign-language source if such a pair of sources are otherwise identical. Here, the sources are quite different. Due to ZDnet's ostensibly larger infrastructure, and in this case, better locality, I say cite ZDnet.be over TorrentFreak. Side note: since ZDnet.com (US) decided to trash without archiving whole swaths of its back catalog of news articles, we quite often have to go to foreign ZDnet editions for historical articles - quite an unconscionable, embarrassing, and colossal fail. --Lexein (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Responses to several above:
  • You can try to make the point that I misunderstand WP:RS, but have no reason to state that I misrepresent.
  • I did not ask for anyone’s “home address, phone number or shoe size.” But, sources should not be anonymous.
  • Yes, BBC did quote TF. However, the BBC only said that they reported that something was claimed, not that it was an encyclopedic fact. And added that “The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites.” As an encyclopedia, it seems to me that WP should follow a higher standard.
  • The idea that, if TF is a good enough source for The Register, it’s good enough for us, I find quite bothersome. I read The Register, The Inquirer, CNET and Wired. But, I take everything they say with a grain of salt.
  • I find the concept that an anonymous source can be thought of as a cited source rather humorous. I’ve read dozens of TF articles and find their attributions vague or nonexistent.
  • Editorials in newspapers are not “anonymous.” The editorial staffs are public.
  • The statement that TF acts as a news conduit for TPB operators sounds to me like an admission that TF acts as the TPB spokesperson. That is certainly not NPOV.
  • TF has a long history of advocating violation of laws and advertising methods of circumventing government attempts to stop illegal activity. I can’t imagine how anyone can think of TF as a non-biased source.
  • The claim that I forum-shop is a flat-out lie. That would seem to fit Belorn. I merely followed him. My “campaign” as you characterize it is to make a small effort at reducing the embarrassing violations in these articles. In fact, more often than not I have been a part of the consensus. The threat to ban me is nonsensical, insulting, without a shred of merit, and itself a violation. Every edit I have ever made has been a good faith, civil attempt to either improve WP articles or reduce WP legal liability according to my understanding of the !rules. I have enormous respect for WP policies and have never been close to a ban of any type. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm probably wasting my time, but: you misrepresent RS "tests" by selecting and omitting. No biggie, it's just obvious. Every source in the world is deeply suspect, because every single one of them is written by people. Highly respected "encyclopedic" sources for which you so yearn - academic ones - have gone down in flames because their highly touted and cultivated air of purity was, simply, burned to ashes by horrible, devastating, academia- and industry-rocking, career-destroying, faith-shaking scandals. By comparison, TF's inadequacies do not approach any such breach of trust. I say, so far, so good. There are plenty of times I've not cited TF, or The Register, for various POV reasons. You are campaigning against TF here, so, stop it. We use it carefully, not wantonly, so, deadhorse flogger, stop flogging. You're not stuck with us: there's always Citizendium and Conservapedia where you're free to blacklist as many sources as you like. --Lexein (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I see you still have no respect for WP:CIV. Comparing my edits to Conservapedia, one of the most disgusting sites on the I'Net with zero respect for integrity, would seem to show a lack of balance on your part. You have re-examined and tuned your behavior in the past. I suggest you try again. Meanwhile, I'm leaving this discussion as it has turned into name-calling and false accusations.74.108.115.191 (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times quote

Why is Los Angeles Times' quote in the top of the page as if it's the only way to describe The Pirate Bay?

Why isn't used Peter Sunde's quote "The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship"?

And I'm sure you can find more positive quotes about The Pirate Bay.

Why is Los Angeles Times considered unbiased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.126.20 (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to include Sunde's quote somewhere, but the Times quote doesn't appear to be incorrect. Biased? Maybe. Unreliable? No. CityOfSilver 20:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I concur with CityOfSilver, though the IP's complaint does have a bit of merit. "Described as" IMHO does belong in the lead, and the LAT quote seems pretty representative of most mass media sources. If there's a more neutral description in a major news outlet, let's discuss here instead of edit warring. Sunde isn't an independent source of opinion, unfortunately, so probably doesn't belong in the lead, but perhaps in the early history, or analysis of, the interactions between the Bay, the bureau, and the party. --Lexein (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me the LA Times quote was, characteristically, succinctly and accurately stated. The LA Times is a well-respected, reliable resource. Peter Sunde’s statements are not only self-serving, but obviously biased as he was convicted of felonies related to the article, and clearly unreliable as a resource since numerous statements of his have been found to be false. Ignoring all of that, examine his quote: “one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.” It looks to me as an insult to the 600 year history of the Swedish peoples in general and specifically those that gave their lives to the basic rights of the Swedish people over many centuries. This is an encyclopedia. Sunde’s view of the impact of his life appears a bit exaggerated. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD is for summarising the most important aspects of the subject. Peter Sunde's quote is self-serving and at odds with the ruling that the site makes money from advertising and torrents of copyrighted material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The LA Times quote of "one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading" is quite wp:Exceptional. Does there exist any other sources to this claim? Surely, if its a universal understood truth, there should be plenty other reliable sources that state this? I am trying to find what news sites like bbc, NY times, and other international know news paper has to say on the matter, but from what I can see, they only claim that the pirate bay is the most famous bittorrent site for copyrighted content. (bbc). please note the neutral tone that bbc uses, which should follow Wikipedia policy more closely? anyway, will keep searching and see what more pops up from other major news sites, but from what I can see, bbc > LA times in both reputation, tone, and neutrality.Belorn (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
update. "largest and most famous BitTorrent piracy site on the Web" - nytimes 2, "a popular file-sharing site for films, music, books and other media content on the Web" - der spiegel. Belorn (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
See Comparison of BitTorrent sites, TPB is the only torrent site with a top 100 Alexa ranking, most of the others are small by comparison. Despite what some people may say, a look at the top 100 charts on TPB makes clear that most of the material that it offers is copyrighted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
How does that change in any way the way pirate bay is being described in major news articles? We should use the descriptions made by the most reliable sources available, not on some quick look on some top 100 charts made by a wikipedia editor. Reliable sources, neutral tone, and refraining from exceptional claims is the way to go. everything else is just agendas and point of view pushing. The fact is, we got LA times saying one thing, and New York times and der spiegel and bbc saying something else. This is not complicated, 3 well known and reliable international news sources vs one less well know news source. The fact that the 3 international news sources also has a more neutral tone and makes a less exceptional claim just makes the issue even more obvious. Either find proof in form of sources that LA times description is more reliable than the others, or accept that LA times description is less know and less reliable verified than the other description. Belorn (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I don’t understand what you mean by “neutral tone” in this instance. Are we still debating whether or not TPB is an illegal site given all the court rulings? The founders were all convicted, sentenced to prison, and all appeals have been completed. Surely the BBC has reported this. The legality of the site is a major part of the article and certainly belongs in the lead. Is there any part of the LA Times quote that is in dispute? 74.108.115.191 (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading is an exceptional claim and I find it as an highly dubious claim (so yes, that is in dispute). facilitators, as a term, mean that anyone that provides a mean for something to happen, would then include even ISPs and Google (which the court documents being discussed above did comment on, and did indeed say that Google is a facilitators of illegal downloading, but not legally liable because their primary usage is not illegal activities). So yes, the claim that TPB is the world largest facilitators of illegal downloading is in dispute (compared to every ISP and search engine in the world). We could modify the quote to say "one of the world's largest legal liable facilitator of illegal downloading as per Swedish law", but that would then leave the source as that is not verifiable. As for neutral tone, "facilitators of illegal downloading" is less neutral than "file-sharing site of copyrighted content". illegal downloading is a highly controversial term (the neutral toned term is called copyright infringement), and if you want I can provide sources over this fact, but more over and more importantly, even more important what you or me or anyone particular persons opinion is on the tone of voice used, we should use the primary description of the pirate bay which is found in reliable sources. If reliable sources uses one way to describe something, who are we to determine that they are wrong? If anything, we should follow reliable sources. If we have 3 international news agencies describe a website in one way, and 1 local news agency in a other way, we should go with the 3 international ones. Please provide sources and wikipedia policy if someone want to dispute this. Belorn (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion. If we want to include every description, the lead would look something like this: The site has been describe as, "one of the most famous file-sharing sites on the web" by bbc[1], "a popular file-sharing site for films, music, books and other media content on the Web" by Der Spiegel[2], "probably the largest and most famous BitTorrent piracy site on the Web" by New York Times[3] and "one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading" and "the most visible member of a burgeoning international anti-copyright or pro-piracy movement" by the Los Angeles Times[4] Belorn (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I can’t believe you are repeating the failed defenses of TPB. Google is not TPB. They were all convicted. All appeals are over. They are convicted criminals. Period. Isn’t it time we stop debating the legality of TPB and hiding the facts behind weasel words? Seriously, illegal downloading is what the site is all about. Obfuscation via positive-sounding euphemisms like “file-sharing” is like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer applied sleep therapy. See WP:EUPHEMISM. This is starting to sound like denial of reality. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Good grief, read what I said. Its the court document themselves that wrote it. Not me, not TPB, not TPB laywer. The court themselves said it. The same court that said TPB was legal liable for their activities. As for euphemisms, check everywhere on wikipedia which touches the subject. It is the commonly used word for it. In the same way we use neutral worded titles like Peer-to-peer file sharing and not Peer-to-peer illegal downloading, the common sense to use the most neutral word applies here. but again, this doesnt matter because reliable sources use the term. There is still no argument made why this should be ignored and why a lesser source should be used when better and more reliable sources are available. This start to smell like NPOV arguments, where a lesser reliable sources is used in favor of more reliable sources to push a point of view. Belorn (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed it is sounding like NPOV issues. In an article about a bank robber, we don’t call him a money-sharer. File-sharing, in and of itself, is legal; just as money-sharing, in and of itself, is legal. TPB is specifically an illegal, pirate site. Calling it a file-sharing site is to denigrate legal file-sharing sites. The LA Times is NOT a lesser source; it is a better source. Its quote is more accurate and to the point. It doesn’t gloss over a most important aspect of TPB with euphemisms. It provides, in a succinct, accurate manner, a definition of the subject of the article. That is the purpose of the WP lead paragraph. 74.108.115.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Funny funny stuff. Basically, the argument you are suggesting is because the source is pushing a point of view instead of using neutral calm tone when describing the pirate bay, it must be better. This is not how things work. Articles are written in WP:IMPARTIAL tone, and pushing a lesser source because the 3 other strong international sources is "too impartial" is just BS. owell, if no one else has any actually arguments to come with, that is some arguments based on policy or sources to back up what they have to say, I will later do a edit that encapsulate all 3 sources and remove the LA times one. If 74.108.115.191 has a issue with balance in regard to using 3 reliable sources in an impartial tone over one lesser source with partial tone, he can bring that up to WP:NPOV/N. Belorn (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The LA Times quote IS neutral, unless you still wish to dispute all the courts. The other sources also talk to the illegality of the site – you just left out those parts. So far, Lexein states “the LAT quote seems pretty representative of most mass media sources.” Ianmacm appears to agree. I agree. Lexein also suggests we should not edit-war. Your position is NOT the consensus. If you make the edit you suggest, you are edit-warring and ignoring consensus. BTW, all of this was discussed earlier. Seems we have to constantly re-discuss everything on this page due to POV attempts to gloss-over the fact that TPB was formed as a commercial, illegal operation. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The LA Times quote may be a bit overdramatic, but is basically correct. TPB is the only file sharing site in the Alexa top 100 (Megaupload used to be there as well, but retired hurt in January 2012). TPB has an obvious strategy of offering torrents of copyrighted material, eg the current top 3 music downloads are Rihanna - Diamonds {2012-Single}, PSY - Gangnam Style (강남스타일) [Single - 2012] and Adele - 21 (Limited Edition CD-Rip @320kbps Bonus+Cov). Belorn may not like the LA times quote, but in terms of facilitating copyright infringement, if the cap fits, wear it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
If the LA times quote are not voiced in a impartial tone, what is the argument against using citations from better sources, more sources, which themselves are more impartial toned. Suppose it said "The site has been described in media as the most famous file-sharing site on the web(ref bbc and spiegel here), and described by New York Times as "probably the largest and most famous BitTorrent piracy site on the Web"(ref to NY times here)." The use of piracy is a bit of loaded word (less so than illegal downloading), but so long its in the context of what media has described them as, and it include a multiple of sources, it passed NPOV with clear margins. In what way is the single LA times source better which we both agree on is not in a impartial tone? Belorn (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The LA Times has won 41 Pulitzer Prizes. You’re acting as if it is a tabloid. It seems that many people don’t like to see TPB described as what it actually is. That’s a POV issue. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to publish facts, not hide them or obfuscate them with euphemisms. The size and illegality of the site are critical facts, and undisputed as there is no current legal dispute nor avenue for appeal. The LA Times provides the most succinct, accurate depiction as it includes the salient facts. “Illegal downloading” is not a “loaded” term given the convictions. It is a matter-of-fact, accurate statement. Absent the convictions, you might have a point. But, they were sentenced to jail. Why mince words? 74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Belorn wrote: The use of piracy is a bit of [a] loaded word. Are you serious? The name of the website is The Pirate Bay. The operators, when threatened with litigation, are known to respond by placing a download link to the complainant's copyrighted work on the front page of their site. The Los Angeles Times is a perfectly good source. — ThePowerofX 21:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I put up the question to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading" (The pirate bay solely description in lead), since consensus looks to be that we rather have a "overdramatic" quotation from 1 lesser source, rather than using one which is shared from 3 from international largest respected new source which all share a impartial tone. NPOV policy state that The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus, but I am not going to push that alone, so I leave it up to the noticeboard. Belorn (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If you noticed the MPAA was the one that said The Pirate Bay is bad not Los Angeles Times.

So why would you add a quote made by MPAA that is against file-sharing? Who is MPAA to judge internet users? Did MPAA contribue to the development of internet? NO!

The quote is biased, it's MPAA opinion, and it should be removed simply because is not credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.185.215 (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that downloading a Hollywood film via P2P without paying for it is illegal under the laws of most countries. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. It is the job of this article to reflect what reliable sources have said, not to discuss the viability of copyright laws in the age of the Internet.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Continuing discussion from WP:NPOVN

This is a continuation of a discussion at WP:NPOVN. After discussion, the following appears to be a lede that is agreeable (and refs will be added back, etc)

The Pirate Bay (commonly abbreviated TPB) is a website founded in 2003 and based in Sweden that facilitates filesharing using the BitTorrent protocol. According to Alexa, in December 2012 The Pirate Bay was in the top 75 most visited websites in the world (ref). In 2009, the website’s founders were put on trial and charged with facilitating the illegal downloading of copyright material. On 3 March 2009 they were found guilty and sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine of 30 million SEK (about €2.7 million or US$3.5 million). Many countries around the world have ordered ISPs to implement procedures to block access to the website.

I believe this version addresses the concerns raised. Thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Its looks fine. If one would nitpick, I would like to change "Many countries around the world have ordered ISPs to implement procedures to block access to the website." -> "In many countries around the world, courts has ordered ISPs to implement procedures to block access to the website". There might exist some countries where the state itself has ordered the blocking (Tunisia and Iran?), but I have not been able to confirm this with any sources. However, this is a minor details of an otherwise very long discussion, so lets update the lead as suggested and see if this one gets accepted in the long run. Belorn (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
ALT2: "In many countries, ISPs have been ordered..." - this includes gov't & court. I like it much better without any quote. Wish I'd thought of it! --Lexein (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Good thinking there with ALT2. Belorn (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The only part that I would query is "in December 2012 The Pirate Bay was in the top 75 most visited websites in the world". This is a WP:ASOF statement that would need constant updating. The usual practice is to have the Alexa ranking in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It might be better to remove, or maybe rephrase, but I'm not exactly sure how. "A popular site" is supported by sources we have. Numerically, Alexa ranks TPB in the top 2009 ~110, 2010 ~100 2011 as .org ~100 and 2012 as .se ~90. If I had an Alexa Pro account I could go back farther with real graphs. --Lexein (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The main point is that TPB is in the Alexa global Top 100, so it is a very popular website. With the exception of KickassTorrents (currently Alexa #132), most of the other bittorrent sites are small by comparison.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Looking at what other articles about sites in top 100 alexa do, we might be able to find inspiration on what to do here. Google search, Facebook and Amazon.com uses phrasing like "The most-used [insert here the type of website] on the World Wide Web", and uses the alexa site as a way to show how the statement to be true. Looking at Youtube and WordPress.com, they do not include any such statement what so ever in the lead, and thus give some example of an lead that do not mention any ranking. Wikipedia on other hand, do mention the exact alexa ranking in the lead, exactly as in this article. My only personal opinion about it is in the case that no decision on what is best can be reached. In that case, just having it in the infobox looks best. Belorn (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I think this next revision should be closer still.

The Pirate Bay (commonly abbreviated TPB) is a website founded in 2003 and based in Sweden that facilitates filesharing using the BitTorrent protocol. In 2009, the website’s founders were put on trial and charged with facilitating the illegal downloading of copyright material. On 3 March 2009 they were found guilty and sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine of 30 million SEK (about €2.7 million or US$3.5 million). In many countries around the world, courts has ordered ISPs to implement procedures to block access to the website.

I've left mention of the Alexa ranking out on the assumption it will be placed in the infobox. In my opinion the lede should have some mention that The Pirate Bay is notable because it is consistently the most popular torrent site in the world - but I can live without it since there isn't a good reference I can find to support it. --HighKing (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

ALT3:
The Pirate Bay (commonly abbreviated TPB) is a website, founded in Sweden in 2003, which facilitates filesharing using the BitTorrent protocol. In 2009, the website’s founders were put on trial, charged with facilitating illegal downloading of copyrighted material. They were found guilty and sentenced to a year in prison with a fine of 30 million SEK (€2.7M or US$3.5M as of 2009). In many countries, ISPs have been ordered to block access to the website.
It was founded in Sweden, but who knows where it "is" now; we can blithely skip that detail. "Trial and charged" - comma is better. Removed an "and" from sentencing. Added SEK template to include link to Swedish krona. Shortened million to M per MOS:CURRENCY. Shortened last sentence, made less specific (some courts, some governments) as suggested above. --Lexein (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I assume we'll be moving the existing statistics in the lead down to the article body... no? --Lexein (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Lexein, nice copy editting. The "statistics" will be included in the infobox - could also be mentioned in a subsequent section, I've no opinion on that. If there's no more to add, I'll change the lede to your version in the coming days. --HighKing (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No further comments so I'll make the changes. --HighKing (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

TPB AFK: The Pirate Bay Away From Keyboard

TPB AFK should be mentioned in The Pirate Bay history. 85.244.74.254 (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocking

The WP:LEAD is not the best place for a detailed discussion of how effective the URL blocking has been. Also, the part that fourteen countries have blocked access to the site was reworded, as it is hard to source accurately and keep up to date.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Pirate Bay Host

The article now contains two statements that TPB is hosted by the Swedish Pirate Party. The original sources are Rickard Falkvinge, the former leader of the Pirate Party, and Peter Sunde, who claimed under oath that he had nothing to do with TPB at the time. However, there have been numerous contradicting claims about the host and the Pirate Party says that the hosting location is secret. On the face of it, the claim that they set up a large, hidden hosting facility one day seems technologically infeasible. It is also true that a long outage at PRQ coincided with a long outage of TPB. Further, Fredrik Neij, founder of both TPB and PRQ, was fined in 2012, years after the claimed move to the Pirate Party, for continued involvement in TPB operations. Considering that TPB has claimed in the past that they were going to be hosted in the Swedish Parliament, on an off-shore oil well, in a country they would buy, in flying drones, etc., I don’t think it makes sense to publish this in Wikipedia as fact. Particularly in the lede.74.108.115.191 (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I was not happy to see this in the WP:LEAD, as TPB has given multiple accounts of how it is hosted and is a dubious primary source about itself in these matters. This probably should not be in the lead section.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

tpb is currently hosted in n korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.2.175 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

According to domaintools.com, it is still hosted in Germany on 194.71.107.15.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The blog post on TPB here today says Korea (neither North nor South), but is headed PYONGYANG). This looks like the latest in the long line of attempts by TPB to create FUD about how it is hosted. The authorship of this blog post (Posted Today 18:45 by Kim Jung-Bay) suggests that a sense of humour may be required.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Source: Ruling of EU court of justice

The article stated that "European Court of Justice ruled that no ISP can be required to filter the Internet". However the reference it linked to was NOT a ruling, but only the written opinion of the advocate general, which does NOT have decisive implications for courts. The court of justice needs to confirm this opinion in a ruling as it did on 24th of November 2011.

I corrected / extended the statement and the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.205.36 (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

North Korean joke

Please, the North Korean thing is a JOKE. Sure they've might have moved to asia (where one of the founder is now living), but it is NOT PRK. Please stop adding that until you have a confirmed routing to PRK. The TPB "press release" is NOT enough to add this as a fact, they have claimed this once before without it being true. BTW, the routing right now ends up in Germany.

Thepiratebay.se pings to 194.71.107.15 which hosts 30 domains associated with TPB. But, 194.71.107.15 points to thepiratebay.org, which pings to 194.71.107.50. This IP is registered to Resilans AB in Germany. However, it traces to a server at Resilans AB in Sweden.74.108.115.191 (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC) norwegian news confirmed it and since it was in norway right before that the norwegians should know.

Thepiratebay.su?

There is a mirror at this address, but its status is questionable. Bearing in mind the potential for spreading malware, this should not be added to the article. The .su domain has a history of misuse.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Pirate Bay co-founder charged with hacking and fraud

This is in the news today.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If I had my way, I'd wait a week to put it in the article, for no other reason than notnews. It would seem to belong on his page, not this one, anyways, since it's not known if he was acting on TPB's behalf. --Lexein (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the legal activities of the founders, before and after TPB, have been made relevant to the article by the fact that the founders and their supporters have made major efforts at painting them as a purely altruistic “movement”. But, I agree to the logic of a lag in anything related to this article given the incredible amount of misinformation we have seen over the years. The lag in inclusion of self-serving, anonymous press releases should clearly be longer than actions of the state.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
At the time that TPB moved to the Greenland domain, they probably did not know that they would be thrown off it within a few days. This was not a silly publicity stunt like the supposed move to North Korea.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 03:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
True that they may not have known they would be thrown out of GL. But, how do you know they actually believed their own story of imminent seizure of their current url? How do you know it wasn’t yet another of numerous, silly publicity stunts to keep themselves in the news as a group valiantly fighting for something? How many times have they made false press releases in the past? Why would an encyclopedia repeat every anonymous press release from an organization whose founders are all convicts, particularly given the history? I think delay is prudent.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's arguing to rush it in. Just sayin'. No need for the harsh rhetoric, really. --Lexein (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
No harsh rhetoric. Just a reality check.74.108.115.191 (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

explain?

Why the Alexa ranking is indicated with a red (indicating decrease) upward (self-explanatory) icon? ie: (IncreaseDecrease) vs. (Negative increasePositive decrease) Is the rank up or down? Thanks. - thewolfchild 18:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody knows. There's a symbology fight: does the pointy tip mean arrow, as in that-a-way? Or does the fat end mean growth that-a-way? This fight has been going on for decades, and can be seen in automotive vent handles (where fat end=bigger=more air) vs turn indicators (where tip points in the direction of turning). It will never be solved. I nominate + and - to be the symbols, to replace arrows and colors entirely. --Lexein (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

.GL move/infobox

Should the infobox domain reflect the history of the domain, or only the most recent? With one change, from .org to .se, it looked ok. But with two changes, it seems cluttered. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is similar to the recent move to the .tt domain by KickassTorrents. Torrent sites seem to be having increasing issues with finding a government backed TLD that will host them, and this should be reflected in the article. Kim Dotcom wanted me.ga but was denied by the government of Gabon.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I added the .gl info to the body, though not in a visually obvious place - it currently follows the move to .se. That Torrent sites seem to be having increasing issues with finding a government backed TLD that will host them seems clear to me, but it would need a source, to avoid synth or OR. --Lexein (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks like TPB is off the .gl domain and back on the .se domain, but there is nothing about it on their Twitter or Facebook feed at the moment. Incidentally, KickassTorrents did not last long on .tt either, and is back on kat.ph.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm Aaaaaaand that's why we try not to act like a news outlet. We lag, in order to be a better encyclopedia. --Lexein (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Followup: there's this essay by User:Joe Decker on WP:Breaking news sources. --Lexein (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Move to .is domain

Aaaaaaand the beat goes on with .is, and now .sx. Please read WP:NOTNEWS and the discussion here before newsflashing the ever bouncing domain ball. It's not going to settle down anytime soon, so let's not be led around by our noses. In fact, I'm thinking of adding a whole section called "Domain-go-round". Anybody else care to revert the most recent change for a week? --Lexein (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

TPB currently seems to be playing musical chairs with its domain. It is unclear whether the .is domain will last for long, so some caution is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
At the time of writing, TPB is using the .sx domain (Sint Maarten). This may as well be in the infobox, as it is the current correct address of the site. It is worth pointing out that TPB had four domains in April 2013.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

.sx domain in the UK

Re this edit. The .sx version is blocked by UK ISPs, eg screenshot from Virgin Media here. The effectiveness of the blocking is questioned by BBC News here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I keep forgetting to add the details, glad others have waited, then added. At this point, I wonder about the proposed 7 day lag; it makes one kind of sense, but maybe it also stifles editor momentum too much. I also wonder about the needed level of detail about TPB domains and blocking; it all seems so ... trivial, now. --Lexein (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Works fine for me on talk talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.10.228 (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Weasel words: "piracy", "anti-piracy"

Why are these words/terms used to describe file-sharing if it has nothing to do with piracy? They should only be used to describe 'the name anti-filesharing organizations. 85.246.174.236 (talk)

I don't believe they have been. Do you have an example? And, they are not weasel words. OTOH, "anti-filesharing organizations" is an example of weasel words.:) 74.108.115.191 (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
And obviously you are a copyright troll (yes I have seen your vandalism on Wikipedia).
"Piracy is typically an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea. The term can include acts committed on land, in the air, or in other major bodies of water or on a shore. It does not normally include crimes committed against persons traveling on the same vessel as the perpetrator (e.g. one passenger stealing from others on the same vessel). The term has been used throughout history to refer to raids across land borders by non-state agents."
vs
"File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digitally stored information, such as computer programs, multimedia (audio, images and video), documents, or electronic books. It may be implemented through a variety of ways. Common methods of storage, transmission and dispersion include manual sharing utilizing removable media, centralized servers on computer networks, World Wide Web-based hyperlinked documents, and the use of distributed peer-to-peer networking."
Troll harder. 85.246.174.236 (talk)
I have no idea what a “copyright-troll” is; but am quite certain your two uses of the word troll and accusation of vandalism are violations of WP:CIV and WP:FAITH.
From the Oxford English Dictionary definition of piracy: “infringement of the rights conferred by a patent or copyright.” First use of piracy with this definition was in 1771. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The changes that you are making to the article, substituting “piracy” with “file-sharing,” are incorrect, not supported by the refs, and, at times, libelous. There is a difference between legal and illegal file-sharing. Your changes accuse anti-piracy organizations with being anti-file-sharing. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Is TPB a commercial website?

Is TPB a commercial / for-profit website, or not? It relies on ad revenue... how to classify it? This is in regards to the infobox in this article which has the following entry: | commercial = with the following edit-mode visible only text "Infobox fields are for uncontroversial statements of fact. This is disputed, and thus clearly not uncontroversial." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously at Talk:The_Pirate_Bay/Archive_4#Infobox_commercial.3D_parameter and Talk:The_Pirate_Bay/Archive_4#TPB_and_commercial_status. The Swedish courts said that TPB is a commercial organization, TPB disputes this. Since the ownership and funding of TPB is secretive, it is hard to say how much money it makes.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
“Commercial” is a legal term defined by the state. The state has ruled that the site is commercial, and there is no ongoing legal dispute. Therefore, the site is commercial. Unfortunately, some WP editors appear to believe that court rulings are simply “hearsay” with no greater standing than anonymous sources or convicted defendants and simply refuse to believe that the rulings of courts settle disputes, even after all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. WP used to be better than this. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This February 2013 article in The Guardian is worth reading. It is not disputed that the TPB website is full of click-through advertising, and it must make a good deal of money from this. TPB's official position is that it is a non-profit [3], albeit in a way that would be hard for an outsider to prove.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
TPB can claim it’s a duck. That doesn’t make it a duck. The state gets to define and adjudicate commerciality. The state ruled that they are commercial. There is no longer any legal dispute. TPB’s claims are completely irrelevant since the court ruled the claims to be false. The statement that commerciality is in dispute and the issue is controversial is simply false and should be removed. But, it won't be. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
If a Swedish court ruled that TPB was indeed a duck - but this was verifiably quite controversial in public spheres (as one would expect) - wikipedia would NOT add a duck Taxobox to the article. Court rulings are not epistemological absolutes, and do not erase controversy. Your statement that no controversy exists around TPB's commercial status is false, unless one has a severely narrow definition of controversy. Roidroid (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
If your definition of controversy is that all people don’t agree, then everything is a controversy. You cannot call ANYONE guilty of ANYTHING. The Wikipedia article on September 11 Attacks says Perpetrators: al-Qaeda in the infobox, even though polls say half the people think there was some government conspiracy. It does not say this is controversial. Sweden has determined that TPB is commercial according to Swedish law, and sentenced the founders accordingly. Like it or not, the Swedish courts get to make this call, not the defendants or anyone else. The legal case has ended. There is no continuing legal dispute. The fact that many people, that have no way of knowing, don’t agree is irrelevant. There is a mechanism for resolving legal disputes. That mechanism, courts of law, was used. Court rulings, at least when they have run the full course of appeals, do, indeed, erase legal dispute. That is their function. If you wish to claim that this is still in dispute, you would have to point to a reliable source that claims the courts did not make this ruling. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The infobox is not the best place for simple yes/no statements. It would be better for the main text of the article to make clear that the Swedish courts found that the site had a commercial element. This is something that can be reliably sourced. The IFPI cite about profitability from 2008, and the whole period of the trial relating to the late 2000s, is now well out of date.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Ars Technica should be used as a source, particularly on this subject about which they have displayed unusual bias. The WP article on Ars Technica states "Articles on the website are often written in an opinionated tone, as opposed to those in a journal." It seems odd that a source would be used multiple times in a WP article when WP itself says the source is opinionated. In fact, this particular ref illustrates the dangers in using biased sources. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
It's important to be cautious with sources, but that quote from the Ars Technica article is a mis-paraphrase of two sources, with undue emphasis on the word "opinion", in my opinion. I've boldly edited it to more closely match the meaning of the cited sources. The article also points out the academic and industry qualifications of Ars authors. So IMHO Ars is reliable if attributed properly and quoted or paraphrased responsibly. Also, WP:RSN has deemed Ars reliable repeatedly. --Lexein (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, I believe you have worsened the situation. The author of the reffed Ars Technica article calls himself an "evangelist." The word clearly means someone with a POV agenda, even to the point of religious fervor. There is a reason Ars Technica was called opinionated. It is extremely opinionated. ALL, I repeat, ALL of their articles on this subject are slanted in the same direction. The author of the reffed article specifically claims he is on one side. The articles conclusions were not only absurd, and based on nothing but opinion, they were proved wrong. This article is a serious embarrassment. It seems any attempt I make to bring back balance results in a yet more extreme slant. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Careful. "Attributed properly", I said. That includes distancing language like, "Joe Blob, Ars self-described "evangelist",[1] opined that ... (whatever).[2]" That's properly attributed. Pretty sure a) the situation isn't as bad as you make out, and b) I didn't make anything worse. Even the most opinionated sources can be sensibly used, depending on their assessed reliability as measured by WP:RS standards (standing, training, publications, etc). Also, WP:RSN. --Lexein (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
But, sources in this article are NOT properly attributed. Large numbers of refs are extreme. Even to the point of calling intellectual property rights crimes against humanity and repeatedly claiming that all Swedish courts and judges are biased and worse. If the article on the U.S. Presidency were written and reffed like this article, it would be 70% refs from birther sites. Why would such sites be used as refs in an encyclopedia? Seriously, in its day, Wikipedia had a reasonable balance. In the last couple of years, many of the balanced folk have left and we are left with a larger percentage of extremists evangelizing radical change and erasing any attempt at balance as an NPOV violation. Read again the WP discussion to which you linked, arguing that judges have no more standing than random fan sites. That the rulings of courts are “hearsay.” Basically, they are arguing anarchy. I have no problem with people debating where law and government should be headed. But, to argue that governments and courts have equal weight to anonymous sources and anarchist sites is not what I think of as NPOV. Many like me have no more desire to expend energy trying to debate such logic. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
BTW, some food for thought. The article on the Pirate Bay Trial has 60% more refs than the article on the Nuremberg Trials. And, I think anyone would conclude that the knowledge, reliability, verifiability, balance, importance, and just plain usefulness of the refs in the Nuremberg Trials article vastly exceeds the refs in the Pirate Bay articles, even in today's world. The TPB trial was barely covered at all in the U.S. press and didn't hit the front pages of any major U.S. paper, even though TPB supporters kept claiming it was somehow related to the U.S.74.108.115.191 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
As of 2013, the ownership and funding of TPB is opaque, something that the site probably wants. It is not possible for an outsider to know what its revenues and running costs are, although estimates by outsiders have suggested that the site makes a profit despite the site's official non-profit status. During the pre-trial investigation, e-mails were obtained showing that the site was more than covering its costs through advertising in 2005.[4] The problem is that there is very little up to date sourcing on the commercial status. Most of it relates to the period of The Pirate Bay trial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we add a line commercial = Disputed, with an inline note explaining the situation (TPB version - ref, suthorities version - ref). It'd be much better than having no mention in the infobox, which some - like me - can find confusing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is NOT disputed. It is commercial. The courts made their ruling. It would be like saying Guilt - Disputed. The appeals are complete. The findings made. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Then the line should be commercial = yes, with a footnote that TPB disputes this (their claim is notable to mention). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Funny, I thought we had such a double footnote (ref for court ruling, +note that TPB claims not). The sands of time... --Lexein (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We already had this discussion, so I don't know what has changed to prompt a new one. Has any new facts been found? No. Has any new statements been made? No. All we have is a ruling about specific assisted copyright infringements, done some time around 2005 or 2006. We don't have any information regarding the site financial status that isn't almost 10 years old, beyond the sites own statement which contest any such claim of profits. Any statement about the commercial status of 2013 is OR, contested, and not an "uncontroversial statements of fact".Belorn (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No, nothing has changed. The site was ruled commercial by the courts and you still refuse to accept court rulings. All the founders were convicted and sentenced to prison. All appeals are complete. There is no legal dispute PERIOD. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
What ever the founder are doing, they are clearly not operating a for-profit torrent site from prison. If you want to make a claim in the article about what the site is doing today, you need to provide a source for it. A court document that describes acts done by the founders of the site in the specific time of 2005 is not verifiable for any claim about the operation of the site today. Any conclusion of how the site is operating today need to have first been described by a reliable source, or its original research. Bring sources, or stop wasting time about a discussion already concluded. Tax records for 2012 would work. Alternative, you could follow Wikipedia editor Ianmacm suggestion and add the information in the body of the article. So long its attributed correctly and state the context (date of the founded fact), it will likely be accepted. Belorn (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Commercial is a legal term determined by the government. The government stated that the site is commercial. Show me where the government changed that ruling. Show me a reliable resource that states the status of the site changed. The word of anonymous sources and claims of convicted defendants are meaningless. You continue to give anonymous sources and losing defendants the same weight as courts. Suggesting that I provide 2012 tax records for a criminal organization is outrageous. I can’t provide any such records for the Mafia. I guess the Mafia must be non-commercial. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
We are now going round in circles on this. The 2005-6 evidence does not prove that the site is, was and will always be commercial, or provide enough evidence for a simple yes/no answer in the infobox in 2013. This is something that is better explained in the text of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

//Argh, stop!// Ruled by government? Which one? The Swedish? Who gives a damn about that? If North Korea or China makes some ruling will Wikipedia change its stance and articles based on that next? Not to point out but this is the English site for Wiki, and even pages in English don't always reflect the opinion of the law in Wiki but the more factual and (mostly) objective opinion. Pirate Bay is not commercial, you don't even have to register on the site to use it, claiming that it is made it just easier for the lawsuits in Sweden to go against the site. I am not usually a Wiki-editor to begin with but this dispute where one side defends "commercial" with a ruling of a single non-English nation's decision is just plain annoying at this point. I ask the contributor to rethink the worth of this debate. 188.6.92.0 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion abated peacefully in June, with apparent understanding all around. Your strong feelings on the matter are noted (see wp:TIGERS), and they're not wrong: there are annoyances all around about the trial and TPB, regardless of politics, or one's stance on copyright. But this Talk page is, as noted at top, about improving the article, meaning hewing closely to what independent published third party reliable sources say on the subject, not our opinions as editors. The court in the TPB's national jurisdiction at the time ruled, and that's what we report in summary form here, and in greater detail in The Pirate Bay trial. We also report that TPB asserts that it is non-commercial. So basically, since the primary source and independent sources disagree, we don't put that dispute in the infobox, we spell it all out as neutrally as possible in the article, citing sources. --Lexein (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The North Koreans would only be relevant if TPB moved to North Korea. Free has nothing to do with commerciality. According to your argument, Google is non-commercial. The courts ruled they are commercial. Therefore, they are commercial. The Internet is not a magic cloak that protects your acts from the rule of law. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
"The courts ruled they are commercial. Therefore, they are commercial." What utter nonsense. Since when to the courts get to define the meaning of words? The concept that gets thrown around this forum (by which I mean Wikipedia itself) is "consensus". Obviously there is no consensus as to whether or not TPB qualifies as commercial or not. Using a single jurisdictions law as the sole source isn't sufficient because laws do vary (and, as I already mentioned, laws don't define words). Without this consensus that people claim to seek, stating definitively that TPB is or is not commercial would be incorrect. All you can correctly state is that TPB says that they are not, while one particular jurisdiction as ruled that they are. Those are the "sourced" facts. Anything else is just an editors option, and should not be presented as verified and sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.71 (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Commercial is a legal term. It is defined by the state. The courts do not define legal terms. But, they do adjudicate such disputes. The finding of the court is important because it affected the sentence. The courts in the jurisdiction in which TPB existed, and still exists according to Traceroute, is Sweden. Other jurisdictions are not relevant. Opinions of Wikipedia editors are also irrelevant. Just as opinions of editors about whether or not a touchdown occurred in American football is irrelevant once the referees have made a ruling. The court rulings are the only sources that matter as they are the final finders of fact in legal matters and there are no more appeals available. I realize that many here do not believe courts matter. This is simply denial. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Down for everyone or just me?

Should we change status to inactive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.207.204.208 (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No, this has happened on numerous occasions. Unless the site is down for at least 24 hours and the mainstream media covers it, the outage should not be mentioned. TPB is down at the time of writing, but many outages last only a few hours and are not notable enough to mention.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, it's up enough to report "Upgrading software, please check back in some minutes." --Lexein (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can't access to it already for 12 hours, so I though I should ask, but you reassured me. 88.206.71.152 (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Up/down("upgrading") several times in the last week. I expect that will be ongoing. There have been whole seasons of uptime, and weeks of seeming uncertainty. That's life. --Lexein (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

cleanup|reason=inconsistencies and out-of-place events

This tag was added to the top of the article, but I removed it. This article is too large just to splat such a tag at the top. Discussion of specific inconsistencies and out-of-place events should be taken up here. I rounded up all the side projects under #Projects, and rounded up all the income sources under #Funding some time ago. I invite proposals for any further rounding up to do. I would oppose turning the whole article into a timeline: that would be a separate article, IMHO. --Lexein (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The structure of the article has been sprawling for quite some time. One possibility would be to split off the blocking into a separate article, eg Countries blocking access to The Pirate Bay. At the moment, the article has issues with WP:SIZERULE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support such a list. Makes me wish we could have subpages in mainspace. Will such a list pass GNG? Note that total text size is ~150K, but WP:SIZERULE is about readable prose size, which is only 50429 B. So, it's on the hairy edge of "may" need to be divided. Splitting the Blocking section would shrink the article readable prose by 17377 B. --Lexein (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
This was split off to Countries blocking access to The Pirate Bay. It makes the article a more readable length and avoids some of the WP:TOPIC issues arising from the long blocking section.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Continuing cleanup

Looking at the TOC, I now see what seems a way to reduce a bit of the organizational chaos. I'd like to change

A B
(current)

Contents

  1. History
  2. Technical details
  3. Website setup
  4. Funding
    1. Early financing
    2. Donations
    3. Merchandising
    4. Advertising
    5. Fee
  5. Incidents
    1. 5.1 Raid
    2. Purchases
    3. Autopsy photos
    4. Legal issues
    5. Service issues
  6. Projects
  7. Blocking
    1. By countries
    2. By corporations
      1. Facebook
      2. Microsoft
  8. In media
  9. Trial
  10. Relations to other Swedish organizations
  11. Failed acquisition
  12. See also
  13. References
  14. External links
    1. Letters and memos
    2. Video/interviews
    3. General

Contents

  1. History
    1. Relations to other Swedish organizations
    2. Failed acquisition
    3. Trial
    4. Blocking
      1. By countries
      2. By corporations
        1. Facebook
        2. Microsoft
    5. Projects
    6. In media
  2. Website setup
    1. Technical details
  3. Funding
    1. Early financing
    2. Donations
    3. Merchandising
    4. Advertising
    5. Fee
  4. Incidents
    1. Raid
    2. Purchases
    3. Autopsy photos
    4. Legal issues
    5. Service issues
  5. See also
  6. References
  7. External links
    1. Letters and memos
    2. Video/interviews
    3. General

There are of course some out-of-timeline placements, and I might be wrong to move so much into the "History" section. Feel free to propose other arrangements in additional columns C, D, etc- we can just scroll right to see them. We can also use <small></small> and refactor as ## numerical lists. --Lexein (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the trial and blocking relate directly to the History section. These should be standalone sections.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Hm - trial not part of history? I mean, it's all history, really. I'm feeling like moving "Incidents" into "History", from the viewpoint of what's important looking back thirty years from now. Hack away at it, though. I've reformatted as a numbered list to ease adding suggestions as a new column, for visualization. I'd like to see/hear what historians would rearrange. Know any? --Lexein (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey Bay

It was not started by TPB, so it's not a TPB Project. It was promoted for a few days on the TPB home doodle as "The Research Bay" (hence already mentioned) and led to the establishment of the independent "The Survey Bay". IMHO it needs to have WP:Verifiability in independent reliable sources for any further discussion on this article. Example:

"The Research Bay survey results were published on The Survey Bay as a public Creative Commons project in 2013."[1][2]

Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It is mentioned by Techdirt here, but there is not much secondary coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
A Forbes blog got it, as did the usual TorrentFreak. With 3 sources, I wouldn't oppose putting a clause about it in the Projects section, as suggested above. Eh? --Lexein (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
No objection to adding this. It helps to establish context rather than simply linking to the site without a source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I support adding this (I originally did add it before it was removed[5]). Here is the Publisher's article about the topic: survey bay - cybernormer.se --Ne0 (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 Done All good, after the independent sources showed up. Thankfully, they seem to have done a bit of work, rather than just publish the press release. Or are PR people now putting out multiple edits of releases these days? --Lexein (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we know, it's down

as seen from several locations, but proxies seem to reach it. Temporary as usual, I'll wager. --Lexein (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It is working at the moment, and according to Is it down right now? it was not a long outage. The reason why some of the proxies keep working during outages is that they are copies of the site rather than true relays.[6].
  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17894176
  2. ^ http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/political-neophytes-do-the-berlin-pirates-have-a-nationwide-future-a-788346-2.html
  3. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/sunday-review/internet-pirates-will-always-win.html?ref=thepiratebay
  4. ^ Sarno, David (29 April 2007). "The Internet sure loves its outlaws – Los Angeles Times". Latimes.com. Retrieved 28 September 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Pirate_Bay/Archive_5&oldid=1142313328"