The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: I found a link to a new version of The Pirate Bay website. Can it be included in the article?
A1: This will not be added unless an address has been confirmed by reliable sources as the new official site. The owners of The Pirate Bay have made no comment about their long term intentions, or endorsed any of the mirror sites. The mirror at thepiratebay.cr is not fully functional and does not allow user logins or new torrents to be uploaded. Concerns have also been expressed about mirror sites leading to scams and malware. Sources: [1][2][3][4]
The Pirate Bay was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pirate Politics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Pirate PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Pirate PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Pirate PoliticsPirate Politics
[[BitTorrent#Indexing|online index]] The anchor (#Indexing) has been deleted by other users before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
lead rewrite and various updates
I am proceeding to fully rewrite the lead with the objective of making it 1) more readable 2) up to date with some of the most prominent events (reopening of registrations, top1 torrent site after 20 years etc) , while also updating the body.
I am also noticing that the Infobos displays some very outdated informations about cryptomining, and donations are also arguably not a significant source of income as the current operator stated, but I'll keep that for now.
I just tried to access TPB and got a popup demanding I install an extension that has a bad reputation. I tried on another browser and got a scam popup. I tried a third browser and got a popup to install Flash, which is unsafe and blocked by most browsers last I heard. I removed the url. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Googled the software the first popup said I had to install to use the site and found many folks asking how I get it off their machines. The second was one of those popups you get claiming your PC has XXX viruses and click to repair it. That is a very common method of installing an actual virus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just tried several more times using a sandbox to get to TPB. The first couple sent me to nudebay.com. The next was stopped attempting to install a keylogger. The last was stopped by Windows Defender as unsafe. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could consitute important additions to add on the body of the articles, as long as you can find sources to support the claims. If the relevance is established it could even, in my opinion, be worth of an addition on lead section regarding their funding using scam links, the reasoning for it and such. But again, it needs sources not your own original research.
All of this still doesn't make for a case for removing the link. We are talking about a link that is of enormous relevance for the whole page: the blocking from some state actors, the org domain being used, 20 years of iterations etc This isn't some minor stuff. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? The only source that talks about them is TorrentFreak and they are long time friends. Google it and you will see all sorts of complaints and unsafe warnings. But not from RS because RS no longer have any reason to talk about them. And what do you mean by {tq|some state actors}}? That sounds like you are insinuating that countries are doing something evil for enforcing their laws. And I said nothing about funding. As for 20 years, do you know who runs the site or where it is or if it is the same? Last I traced it, it was in Bulgaria. It is irresponsible for us to link to a site that risks our users devices. Children can use Wikipedia.
Look, if someone really wants to steal a movie or look at porn, they can Goggle it without our providing a link. We provide the site name. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are providing zero sources about your claims against Torrent Freak, which is a reliable outlet about piracy topics.
We still need source to add the idea that they serve malware, specificy what kind of malware, for what reason (funding, pure evilness, who knows) etc not your original research.
I have finished my work on the lead. I think that the first paragraph is now extremelly more readable. Before my intervention it suffered from being exceptionally obscure, mixing technical terms with very few common words and not providing a simple statement about why the topic is notable, which it now does.
I only slightly changed the other paragraphs, trying to follow a partially historical progression that ends with a more broad cultural relevance.
The missing part of the work would be to move all the references, sometimes too abundant, on the body of the article in order to provide a cleaner look to the lead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User @Ianmacm removed my addition to the lead that stated:
More than 20 years after its creation, The Pirate Bay is still one the most popular torrent site worldwide.
With the reasoning "his isn't really needed in the opening paragraph and could be seen as WP:PEACOCK for the site"
I'll proceed to change "popular" to "visited", and rephrase the time span as well to make it the most neutral. Just to be clear about the core of the edit though, this is an essential information to have on the lead. As for WP:LEADThe notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences..
Looking at other major internet websites they all establish notability by mentioning visitors, which is clearly what makes a website notable. Without that the reading makes no sense, since you would not understand the reason for the raids, trials, broader cultural significance.
End of first paragraph : As of October 2023, Facebook ranked as the third-most-visited website in the world, with 22.56% of its traffic coming from the United States. It was the most downloaded mobile app of the 2010s.
This edit still has problems with peacock wording, because it is vague and unsourced. I am worried about the attempts to puff TPB in the opening paragraph, by portraying it in a rather positive or promotional light by making it seem bigger and better than the other torrent sites. It is definitely the most long lasting, because numerous other well known torrent sites have fallen by the wayside over the last twenty years.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) It is necessary to establish notability in the first paragraph, I provided exemples for it from similar pages and a link to the official guideline.
2) Precise sources are present on body of the article, from Alexa ranking to Torrent Freak.
3) It is not only the "most long lasting", it is one of the "most visited". This doesn't have any peacock wording.
I just clicked again on the TPB link in the infobox. This time BitDefender blocked a redirect to a phishing site. I do not understand any rationale for purposely endangering our users. Frankly, I think Wikipedia could be liable for damages. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VirusTotal says BitDefender says clean. But I just tried two more times and received two more BitDefender phishing attempt warnings, to a total of three different urls. But, it's not blocking thepiratebay. It is blocking a popup or a redirect. So why does it matter if the landing page is considered safe if it loads a second page which is a phishing site? We cannot assume our users use popup blockers. I don't. The behavior is constantly changing. Sometimes it redirects to nudebay, sometimes scam popups appear, sometimes Windows Defender or BitDefender blocks, sometimes nothing happens at all. TPB has two decades of experience with avoiding various types of blocks. It's no surprise that they are using that experience in this manner. These are not annoying ads. These are attempts to install keyloggers and phishing attempts that can result in serious financial damage. In the end, we are endangering our users and I see no reason for this as anyone can Google it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is your research. Virustotal says otherwise. Like the top of this talk page says Wikipedia is not censored. Even if their homepage servs adware the link is extremelly significant. It is also arguably more safe to have a link to an official site that let extremelly nefarious mirrors have their way.
Neither WP:CENSOR nor WP:OR prevent us from using good editorial judgement. Your request to whitelist the TPB Onion link was declined along with the statement: Absolutely not. There is absolutely no reason to link to thepiratebay anywhere on Wikipedia. It cannot be used as a source, and is not necessary in the article about it.[6]O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't give any reasoning behind it. Even though an admin is expressing this view this is, for me, a clear attempt at censorship. Other torrent sites have their link up.
And you have given no reason why you want to link to a site that is directing the browser to phishing sites. TotalVirus says BitDefender does not mark TPB a dangerous page. That is correct. That one page is not dangerous in and of itself. It's the additional page that is being forced into your browser. When I go to TPB, BitDefender does not block the page. It's blocks the second pag, logging that it is unsafe. So, TPB can beat TotalVirus while still forcing you into dangerous pages. They've been going around various blocks for decades. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the link is relevant, Wikipedia pages link to websites. That's all.
Wikipedia does not link to every website. WP:LINKFARM And I also keep getting different results, as opposed to what one would expect - just the linked page instead of a phishing scam. As for censorship, I'm sorry but that's simply absurd. Not including a link is not censorship. We have a large number of unacceptable links, including "Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States." WP:ELNOO3000, Ret. (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not "every website", we are talking about the main website.
You don't even read the pages you link... WP:ELNO clearly states:
Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:
it also states
Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist.
Like I've said from the beginning:
1) You are not the judge to decide if The Pirate Bay serves malware.
Hmm, the infobox gudelines state it must be the official url. You stated yourself that it isn't their official url and attempted to change it. Now you insist their non-official url be in the infobox. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the .org url isn't their official url. It is their official url. Together with the onion url which is for the tor network.
Don't know what your point is. And I certainly did not say removing the url would expose users. I said the opposite. Your link points to an article about the extreme dangers of hacking. That's exactly why we should remove a link to a site that has a long history of spreading malware and who's link itself exposes users to malware. Why would any responsible human consider such? O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comment for The Pirate Bay link on page
Yes per WP:ELOFFICIAL. The abovementioned popups in the official link don't occur in my Firefox (with ad blocker) and Brave. In Google Chrome the popup appeared only once, disappearing after browser restart. Brandmeistertalk20:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be random. For me about one-third of the time one of the following occurs: redirect to nudebay, immediate warning from Windows Defender or BitDefender of a keylogger or phishing page, fake warning from McAfee or Norton (which I don't have) with link to phishing site. Just tried a bunch of times again and BitDefender logs show there were blocks to three different phishing sites. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Based on the discussion above it seems to be just a single user encountering popups for adware; that isn't enough to meet the criteria for WP:ELNO point 3, which requires actual malware, trojans, exploits, etc. before a site becomes unusable. A more obvious problem is the copyright violations; my opinion, however, is that the prohibition in ELNO point 3 is intended for more serious issues than that. If the mere fact that a site provides links to material that violates copyright alone were enough to bar us from linking to it, sites like the Internet Library would also be banned, which is nonsensical. --Aquillion (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been having a look round the TPB website with the browser add-on Bitdefender Traffic Light installed and it didn't complain about any of the pages. That's not to say that none of the pages have ads or pop-ups that could be a problem, but I am also using the Brave browser and this gets rid of nearly all junk. Also no complaints from Windows Security.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking at the BitDefender log and launching the TPB main page? I've tried on three days and the BitDefender log has dozens of "phishing attempted detected" messages. This occurs with Edge, FireFox, and Chrome. I've also tried in a sandbox, which is virgin Windows without my installed apps, and it gets warnings from Defender. Some adblockers may block these silently. But like hundreds of millions of people, I don't use an adblocker. Of course if you Google Pirate Bay virus, you get a couple pages of complaints and warnings over decades. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=icon}
.jpg){kind=small}
