Talk:The Pirate Bay trial/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article Creation

This trial is arguabally the biggest trial to date in the P2P world and thus deserves its own article on Wikipedia. Please help me expand this article to include all known facts about it. Thanks. JeremyWJ (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Live feeds

I believe it should be mentioned that the feeds are live. And when the trials are over, there should be a link to some kind of collection of recordings of the trial. Also I believe this link should be added: http://trial.thepiratebay.org/ And let's not forget to mention the word 'spectrial'. I'd write all that myself, but my article-writing skills aren't that good. unimatrix (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if adding them is really appropriate as we can't know of the content of these feeds before hand. We are trying to stick to the main trial here, not all the amusement stuff that is going along with it. JeremyWJ (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Real trial name

Is their an actual name for the trial (i.e. IFPI v. The Pirate Bay)? If someone can find this out, the article's name would be improved.--Marcus Brute (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Most people refer to this trial at "The Pirate Bay Trial". I think the name should stay. Its not just the IFPI either, its a whole group of people against them. The name just goes along with the other articles such as "The Pirate Bay", "The Pirate Bay Raid", and now "The Pirate Bay Trial". JeremyWJ (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article needs to be retitled. Court cases are usually named "party vs. party". It doesn't really matter that IFPI isn't technically the only prosecutor. These names often just feature the front-runners. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:27, 18 Feb 2009 (UTC)

The official name is: "Allmänna åklagaren mot Fredrik Neij m.fl.", i.e. Public prosecutor v. Neij and others.[1]. Possibly not the most convenient title for the article... --Hapsala (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We should probably just wait and see what the English-language media starts calling it. So far I haven't seen any consistent name emerge yet. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:22, 18 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving the article to slightly more general title "The Pirate Bay case". --11:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Google search for "the pirate bay trial" yields 3,650,000 results, whereas "the pirate bay case" only 778. Some of that difference could actually be due to the present Wikipedia article title, but I doubt if all of it is due to that. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:43, 19 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to change it right now. Everyone pretty much refers to it as "The Pirate Bay trial". Anything else, especially the official name mentioned earlier, would be highly confusing. I strongly oppose, at this moment, any name changes. JeremyWJ (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could rename it to the "slang" version of it : Spectrial? Although I doubt that would be appropriate. Just thought I would add that. JeremyWJ (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not appropriate, but it is already a redirect here: Spectrial. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:15, 21 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I know.... I was just joking with that suggestion. JeremyWJ (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest placing the year inside the name: "Pirate Bay 2009 Trial". I am uncertain whether or not the Pirate Bay had previous legal battles and placing the year will help differentiate between these. Exe89

Claimant rather than Complainant

Claimant is the better recognised term, which should thus be used. It has less of a slant than complainant —Preceding unsigned comment added by London prophet (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that in Swedish law, only the prosecutor and the defendants are formal parties in the trial. The consortium are only called as prosecution witnesses, and are as such only entitled to file individual compensation claims for damage. --Hapsala (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

New Penalties?

Now that half of the charges have been dropped, does anyone have a source stating what they are now facing in terms of fines and jail time? Obviously this has changed since half of the charges were dropped. JeremyWJ (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• From torrentfreak.com:

• This has resulted in prosecutor Håkan Roswall having to drop all charges relating to “assisting copyright infringement”, so the remaining charges are simply ‘assisting making available’. “Everything related to reproduction will be removed from the claim,” he said.

• What this means is that the charges only apply to making torrent files available. Not the actual infringing material. More than that though, the prosecution must charge a specific person with a crime before others can be charged with "assisting". Without an initial crime, there is nothing to assist. With the original charges dropped, many fail to see how the prosecution will be able to get anywhere. Not sure what this means for jail time if the "assisting" charge were to stick. - Mr. X 99.251.246.204 (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Current court case template

Conti, I know you don't think it belongs here, but the fact is you don't think it belongs anywhere. Until there's consensus that the template should be deleted, I think you should leave it up when people use it. I know there's a sentence that says the trial is ongoing (I know because I put it there), but I think it's also valuable to have a notice that stands out so people can see immediately that this is a current and ongoing event. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:15, 19 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia has a template for ongoing court cases, we use it. Despite if the article says it or not. The template is used not only for the people reading the article (that could see it says it in the article) but for categories of like "on going court cases". JeremyWJ (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? There is no "ongoing court cases" category. Do you mean Category:Current events as of February 2009? --Conti|✉ 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier for me to accept that if I could understand why it is valuable to have the notice on top of the article. No one has yet been able to give me a satisfactory answer to that question. Shouldn't the general guidelines from Template:Current be applied to Template:Current court case? --Conti|✉ 21:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what? You're right. Although personally I think it is valuable to have a notice at the top, the consensus on these types of notices has been to just place them on articles that are being edited rapidly. There should be some documentation at the template to reflect that. I'm removing it from the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:06, 19 Feb 2009 (UTC)

That was surprising. :) Actually, I would support adding Template:Current to this article on or around March 4 (when the trial is supposed to end), since we probably will have rapid editing then. But right now the editing looks pretty okay to me. I've started a discussion at Template talk:Current to ask for opinions on whether the guidelines from that template should be true for all the "current" templates that we have. --Conti|✉ 21:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Imo current templates should be used more liberally as a disclaimer that information might be outdated, instead of only usibg update template when it IS confirmed outdated. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Every page of wikipedia has a disclaimer link at the bottom, saying basically that articles are subject to change, and they may or may not be accurate. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. --Conti|✉ 12:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, "There are a few exceptions to this: ...temporal templates..." which includes the {{Current court case}} template. I don't know it it is needed, but is permitted. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Date confusion

When there's a date mentioned in this article, it's 2008. The trial, however, started in 2009. This is confusing. The article should clarify that the charges were filed in 2008, and 2009 dates should be indicated in the text describing the trial. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Explaining Neologism 'Spectrial'

Is it worth integrating something about this neologism 'spectrial'? Here's my proposal. i will check back to see what everyone thinks, if someone feels the urge to put it in before i do, do it.

"[...started on February 16 and is scheduled to finish on March 4; it is broadcast live by Swedish public radio.] The trial was named 'Spectrial', a portmanteau of trial and spectacle. The term is used as a short hand way to refer to the events by the community, bloggers and Spectrial, a website run by Piratbyrån and The Pirate Bay, which reports on many aspects of the trial."

The first reference is in german. Is that a problem? The important bit translates is as follows: DE "hier die Suche nach dem Hashtag #spectrial (Mashup aus Spectacle und Trial) für Tweets" EN "here the search link for tweets containing the #spectrial hashtag (a mashup of trial and spectacle)"

I'd put something in about Spectrial having first hand information, but i can't find quotable verification.

Floker (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

good idea, however I am not sure what you mean with "the community" - which one?. Try this for an English source [2]. The BBC and the times have also reported on the trial in some detail, they might be good English sources. You can use non-English sources in the English wikipedia, people can verify it with google translator. also, "spectacle" should be wikilinked to Spectacle (Situationism), like this - spectacle.--SasiSasi (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

'the community' is indeed a bit vague. What i meant was the people at twitter, bloggy.se, soup.io and so forth. Here's my revised addition:

"[...started on February 16 and is scheduled to finish on March 4; it is broadcast live by Swedish public radio.] The trial was named 'Spectrial', a portmanteau of trial and spectacle. The term is used as a short hand way to refer to the events by the community (i.e. on sites such as Twitter and Bloggy.se), bloggers and Spectrial, a website run by Piratbyrån and The Pirate Bay, which reports on many aspects of the trial."

Your source also cites #spectrial as being the primary hashtag on twitter, handily.

thanks you for your help so far, are you happy enough with what i came up with to have it in the article? (I'm a bit of a newbie to this sort of thing)

Floker (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Inserting Day 4 and Day 5 Events

Should we include day 4 and 5 in the page? Controversial claim for day 5 " Pirate Bay: survey says that 80% of our torrents are legal" . Exe89 (talk)

If you want go ahead. They are useful right now since its ongoing ... however later one they'll probably be removed or merged into other sections of the article. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The article definitely needs ongoing updating... with sources please. Once the trial is finished we can revisit the structure.--SasiSasi (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

King Kong merge

I'm opening this merge decision on a procedural note, following my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong defence as "keep with no prejudice to a merge". I believe a merge discussion is the next step because half of the people in the AfD wanted to merge into this article. I myself abstain from the discussion. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll get the ball rolling in case the closure sticks. The indisputable fact is that topics need to be independently notable. If something is only known and referred to within the context of a parent topic, it doesn't merit its own article. This means that in order for King Kong defense to remain an individual article, it must be shown that the King Kong defense has been referred to in objective, reliable sources, without being in reference to the Pirate Bay trial. In other words, notability of "topic B" must be shown independent of merely one particular instance, "topic A" -- otherwise, "topic B" simply becomes a detail of the "topic A" article. To further illustrate, if you were writing an article on pizza, you wouldn't create a separate article for "extra cheese", despite the fact that it's a well-known phrase used very often.

What King Kong defense needs in order to remain a separate article, the long-awaited list version:

1. Reliable sources. This does not include blogs. See WP:RS.
2. At least some of those sources must be objective and independent.
3. Notability must be shown independent of merely one particular instance, within those reliable and objective sources.

If thou hast evidence, bring forth and ye shall be heard. I should also add, a merge means two things (more or less): that the content of the King Kong defense article will be moved to The Pirate Bay trial article, and that "King Kong defense" will become a redirect to The Pirate Bay trial. Anyone coming to Wikipedia by clicking on a link or searching for King Kong defense will be automatically taken to The Pirate Bay trial, where they will find the information they were looking for. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:49, 21 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting this curious notion of independence from? To follow your reasoning above, the Michelle Obama article ought to be merged into that of her husband. Furthermore, WP:RS emphatically does not prohibit blogs from being reliable. Skomorokh 18:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Obama is the first lady and has other claims to her OWN notability. This defense is hardly notable outside of the trial it occurred in. There is no need to have a separate article on, say, Dennis v. United States and Arguments used in Dennis v. United States. Support the merge. Scapler (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support merger. It has no notability beyond this trial. If there is ever another case where it is used and referred to by this name, then it can be split again. --ascorbic (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if getting back into the whole voting thing would be a great idea. I think the point of closing the AfD and bringing this here was to get into more of a discussion. Just putting that out there. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:55, 21 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• weak oppose merge The King Kong Defence article contains a large amount of content. If we merged it as-is, then it would overpower the Pirate Bay Trial article, giving the false impression that it is the key point of the trial, when in reality it is only one aspect of a large cultural and legal phenomenon. For an analogy, imagine the problem if the Baseball article was 50% about the left-fielder position. This would raise neutrality issues that make me uncomfortable. On the other hand, if we shorten considerably it then we would be cutting out a lot of useful well-sourced encyclopedic content, which is also no good. Thus having a short summary in the trial article linked to a more in-depth article devoted to the defence is the best move. AfD hero (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think "overpowering" should be much of a concern. If the article gets longer, that's fine. This doesn't qualify as a neutrality issue either, because there are no opposing viewpoints at work. There are plenty of articles where explanations of specific aspects of the topic garner more content than the general description. There's nothing wrong with that. I'd go as far as to say it's expected. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:56, 21 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• Neutrality is not just about balancing opposing views. It is a broader concept that includes making a good faith effort to not mislead the reader, whether blatantly, or more subtly as is the case here. There is a great section that discusses this in the NPOV policy page, which I quote here:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements..

I can see where you are coming from, which is why my oppose is weak, but I still stand by it for the reasons above. AfD hero (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight isn't a reason on its own to split off a topic into a separate article. If an aspect isn't important enough to a topic to merit the amount of content it's received in an article, then we simply reduce it to a more appropriate length. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:22, 21 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• Like I said above, deleting informative reliably sourced encyclopedic content is not something I can support. AfD hero (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• You should. That's what weight is all about. Half of editing is removing. Just cause reliable info is available doesn't mean we include it all. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:31, 21 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• Take a look at the Talk:The Pirate Bay trial/Merge draft, which I think demonstrates that the "overpowering" issue isn't a problem. --ascorbic (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That draft cuts a little bit of content, and is still a little long compared to the rest of the article, but it's not bad, certainly a good start. I'm neutral on the issue at this point. AfD hero (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article is informative, well sourced and notable enough to remain a separate article. Explaining the process in this article would just take up to much of the article, directing one's attention away from the article's main subject. --Kaizer13 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is probably now going to be a staple in all future torrent legal battles across the globe. This article should stay as its only going to grow more and more importance over time. JeremyWJ (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If that proves to be true the article can always be un-merged. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:53, 21 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I still oppose, strongly. Despite my prediction, coming true or not. I think both articles here have much importance and warrant their own articles. JeremyWJ (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No one disputes its importance, but on Wikipedia importance is not the same as notability. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:02, 22 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• • WP:Crystal ball is a very good, sensible guideline. We don't know at all if this is notable or not yet, and I doubt it would have had its own page if people hadn't found it amusing. Should it get any importance and notability outside of the trial, then it can be moved back. Should it not, it belongs here. Julle (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Giving the limited notability outside the trial, the size of the related articles, merging seems like the best way to go. Even if the arguments used in this trial are used in other similar trials it seems that having the reference back to this article and the section within the article would be the best approach. The merger below looks good, and looks like a good balance for the article, especially considering that it is still likely to grow some. PaleAqua (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course this should be merged. I've already stated why at least twice. I can't see why people have suddenly chosen to ignore well accepted codes of conduct, like WP:Crystal ball and WP:ILIKEIT. They are putting their own agendas in front of Wikipedia's. That's human, but people whose interests are not to improve Wikipedia but to push their own political agendas, should stay away from editing Wikipedia. /Grillo (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, if someone didn't realize it, it's not whether or not this term has been used in the trial that's in dispute, it's whether or not it will become a regularly used defence and/or internet meme. That's what's needing sources, which today is impossible to achieve, since the term was coined just a couple of days ago. /Grillo (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

*Strongly support merger. Places article into the proper context and retains all information the would serve as the basis for a stand alone article, should the need ever arise.Vulture19 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Didn't realize this discussion was for wikipedians only. Don't want to gum up the works.Vulture19 (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't know we were voting. If we are, then yes, I support the merger; if we are not, please feel free to discuss the matter below. Themfromspace (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh... No, we're not voting. The problem is, of course, the limited knowledge of Wikipedia behaviour among non-wikipedians who just come here to push their agenda. And yes, I know the same could be said about me, if one doesn't realise I am among the most active users on svwp and I have, if I dare to say it myself, a very good insight into wiki culture. /Grillo (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge draft

I've created a draft of the merged article, to give everyone a better idea of what that option would look like. It's at Talk:The Pirate Bay trial/Merge draft. Due to undue weight, I did leave out certain parts of the current King Kong article that had to do with the trial in general but not with the King Kong defense specifically. Also removed a duplicate quote. Otherwise everything is pretty much still there. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:07, 21 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good merge to me. Just a note that subpage in main article space are not enabled. See Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses for more details. The draft probably be placed at Talk:The Pirate Bay trial/Merge draft from my understanding. PaleAqua (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved the draft per your suggestion. Thanks for the heads-up. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:43, 21 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good to me. It's succinct while providing nothing but straight-forward information and it falls under the proper article title. Very encyclopedic, I give it my full supp endorsement. Themfromspace (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems great, and the weight given to it seems about right. --ascorbic (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful, all relevant information included. Scapler (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well. Julle (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Merged version appears to include all neccesary information to signify the importance of the defense as it stands now. Should it ever become noteable of it's own accord (see Chewbacca Defense) then the redirect can be replaced at that time. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent draft, and puts this whole matter into the proper context. Vulture19 (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Completing merge

I think we've waited long enough. Now that the argument has died down, and people seem happy with the merge draft, I think it's time to actually perform the merge. I'm going to do this by the end of today if no one else gets to it first. Just letting everyone know. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:47, 27 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I've completed the merge. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:46, 27 Feb 2009 (UTC)

moved from User talk:Equazcion: Hey, I see you've recently merged that article. Based on what rights did you do that? I thought there was an <instense> ongoing discussion, on which there seemed to be strong favorability for non-merger/removal, so on what decision did you merge it? It also seems that you removed some content from it. 189.100.240.238 (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As I just stated, there was an intense discussion, but it has since died down. We've waited quite a while with this, and people seemed satisfied with the merge draft, for the most part. The right I exercised was simply that of enacting the result of a discussion. I described the necessity for the content removals above -- much of it had nothing to do with the King Kong defense, and there were WP:WEIGHT concerns as well. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:40, 28 Feb 2009 (UTC)

The "intense discussion" that took place in the AfD ended in a consensus that the content was worth keeping in WP, but also that it didn't warrant it's own article at this time. The recommendation when the AfD was closed was to transition to a merge discussion, which was carried out here. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"defence" vs "defense"

Could someone tell me what the arguments are for US vs. UK spelling here? Near as I can tell, we're dealing with a topic of Swedish origin, so neither choice seems to have the upper hand here. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:04, 22 Feb 2009 (UTC)

We use defense, the US version. Notice on Wikipedia "defence" is redirected to "defense" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defence&redirect=no). We should keep consistent with Wikipedia here and use "defense". JeremyWJ (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As per the MoS, many times the more global usage is used. In Sweden, Defence is the more apt term (see Ministry_of_Defence_(Sweden) and National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden)). In much of global-context spelling, the usage that appears first within the article is continued throughout. As this article was written for European-based content, defence was the first usage in place, and defence is of more global usage than defense, defence should remain the standard. That is to say, Don't Americanize the Content. Rurik (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no basis for saying that defence is the more global usage. Based on the consistency argument I'd say the article started out using US spelling -- see "organization" under the Pirate Bay section (the UK version being organisation). Equazcion •✗/C • 02:16, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Being the creator of this article I can say without a doubt that this article was started in US English. JeremyWJ (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

←Stop reverting each other please. We don't have consensus yet. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:27, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

The acid test for me would be seeing what the general accepted spellings are in the English-language media of Sweden. I found The Local, which according to Media of Sweden is the most prominent English-language news website in Sweden. A quick look at the front page today shows that it appears to use UK spellings. Any further arguments? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:40, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead with changing to UK spellings for now, though I'm open to discussing further objections, should there be any. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:41, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the article started using American English. The earliest versions of the article such as this one (by the original author) used the American English spelling for "organization" which appears to have remained until recent edits. The first occurrence I can find of British English usage was this edit 9 days later. The article has evolved through a mix or American and British English versions, with many versions containing a mix, such as this edit at which point the article used the words "defense", "defence", and "organization" (but not "organisation"). Since Sweden is not an English-speaking nation, the WP:MOS#strong national ties to a topic guideline does not apply. Since the original versions used American English, we should follow the "variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used" per the WP:MOS#Retaining the existing variety guideline. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why Sweden being a non-English speaking country means we should discount the topic's ties to Sweden, which seem to me undeniable. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:34, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

The WP:MOS#strong national ties to a topic specifically refers to an "English-speaking nation", so I do not believe it applies here. -- Tcncv (talk)

I'll have to suggest we overlook that particularity of the guideline in favor of its spirit (and examine changing the guideline). When a topic has ties to a country, and that country generally uses a particular spelling tradition, it shouldn't matter if it's an officially English-speaking country. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:48, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

In the mean time guidelines are guidelines. Reverting. JeremyWJ (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I posed the question here on the MOS talk page. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, guidelines are guidelines -- not laws, and we are supposed to ignore their letter in favor of their spirit, per WP:IAR. I'll also remind you that that's your third revert in the span of a few hours. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:12, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP:IAR is a fine policy, but is not a good approach when there is no general agreement. In this case I think it is better to stick to the guidelines as spelled out in the MOS. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Relax there buddy. Any possible agreement hasn't been determined yet. I think we'll be doing whatever the consensus turns out to be in this discussion, which only started a few hours ago. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:59, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I expected some edit wars on an article so controvertial, but not over something like this... AfD hero (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

American English is a *derivative* of the real, original, English, and as such American English spellings are ONLY appropriate on articles which are in some way related to the United States. --Intimidated^talk 22:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, not according to Wikipedia policy. We go with precedent set in the article. Scapler (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not always. For one thing, it is not a policy, it's a guideline. Secondly the guideline states that if the article relates to a country using a non-US variant of English, then that variant is more appropriate. It doesn't really matter how the article got started. As an extreme example, if I write an article about a small English village, and I write it using US English, anyone would be justified in changing it to UK. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing that this article should be in American English, I do think it would probably make more sense in British English. I was just incited that someone would claim that American English is some sort of inferior English derivative. By Intimidated's logic, all articles should be written in Old English, since it came first, and both British, American, and Australian English are derived from it. Some topics are, in fact, neutral, for example, Carburetor is named with American English rather than naming it carburettor. Thus, British is not some sort of superior default. Scapler (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it we could go back to Latin, Greek, Old Norse... yeah, Intimidated's "real, original" comment pissed me off too. I wasn't gonna say anything, but now that it's out there... Every language is derived from others, including UK English. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:43, 24 Feb 2009 (UTC)

For the case about a "small English village" the choice is clear, because the UK is clearly an "English-speaking country", which is the qualification spelled out in the national ties guideline. The question is: what constitutes an "English-speaking country"? For countries where English is the/a primary language such as Canada, Australia, and even India, the answer is yes and the local variety applies. But if X percent of a country speaks English as a second language with a varying degree of fluency, does it qualify? How many television and radio stations broadcast in English? If I go to the local grocery store, will the weekly discounts be posted in English?

I believe that the national ties guideline, which has been around essentially unchanged for at least 5 years, was intended to be a clear definition of when national ties overrides existing variety and to provide a quick resolution for disagreements such as this. However, if the definition of "English-speaking country", is subject to interpretation, the guideline becomes useless as a basis for dispute resolution. Perhaps the guideline needs to be reworded to define a degree of fluency and usage or to explicitly list countries to which it applies. Maybe all EU members could be considered to be British-English speakers. But that is a question best discussed here on the MOS talk page. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We can just determine what the most peaceful course of action would be for this article for now. If general Wikipedia practice needs fixing, that's not something we need to worry about for this case, and can be discussed separately by those interested in the broader issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:03, 24 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Not that i haven't seen this sort of thing before, but I don't understand how so much discussion could be necessary. The obvious thing to do is to use UK spelling, since Sweden is a European country, and predominant English spelling in Europe is British, at least in intellectual circles (maybe not on the street as it were). No matter the policy, is that not undisputed? Floker (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

British English is indeed what is taught in Swedish schools (though in reality, it's probably more Mid-Atlantic: British English in school, American English in movies and on tv), but that's a rather weak connection: Sweden is not an English-speaking country. The most sensible thing seems to be to treat this as any other topic not related to an area where a specific kind of English is spoken. And, as Plrk said, this is a seriously crazy discussion. Julle (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But you would agree that BE suggests itself on this matter, wouldn't you? Floker (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If for no other reason: BE is generally taught in Swedish schools. The best sources will be available in Swedish (and Swedes probably care most), thus a lot of editing will be done by Swedes. That, if nothing else, would suggest BE, yes. Julle (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No matter how hard I try, I just don't get the whole "English-speaking country" thing. Who cares if it's not officially English-speaking when nearly everyone there can speak English? Crazy or not, we have to go one way or or the other on this. The fact that it's crazy doesn't make the decision any easier. It's not like we can arbitrarily choose one now that we know it's crazy. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:37, 25 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Now, what are the good arguments for american english again? :-) Floker (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no argument for American English. Only a case against making unnecessary changes to existing language variety. The British might reasonably object to American English used in the Buckingham Palace article as Americans might reasonably object to Australian English used in the White House article, but as far as I can tell the Swedes do not really object if they visit the English Wikipedia and see a variety other than British English on an article about a Swedish court case. (I suspect this article has a fairly high international visibility anyway.) Personally I don't care about style for this article specifically, but think it would set a bad precedent to made the change. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Which basically means the argument for American English is that it was used for a word or two by the article creator. Taking the "who would object" point a bit further, knowing what we know now of Sweden, what's more likely: that people would object to American spelling in this article, or British? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:21, 27 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Well we've both made our cases, and others have voiced mixed opinions (more in favor of change to British English). I understand and respect your view and do not wish to stand in the way of progress. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited opinion from the peanut gallery

I've seen worse edit wars over English spelling. I participate frequently offering Wikipedia:Third opinions. Although this is unsolicited, I'll offer my views:

• The relevant guideline here is WP:ENGVAR.
• It's fine to have the article use spelling consistent with the US-spelling the original author used.
• However, the guideline also recommends that an article with ties to an "English speaking" nation use the version of English of that nation.
• It was argued above the Sweden isn't an English-speaking nation. I beg to differ. Every time I have visited there, everyone I meet, in shops, on the street, speaks impeccable English. And when they write it, it tends to be British English.

In conclusion, much as I consider British English to be archaic and outdated, it seems to me that it's appropriate to change the spelling of this article over to British English, because that is, in fact, the English spoken in Sweden, when they speak it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That was not the intent of WP:ENGVAR; every country has some English speakers, but the reason for strong ties was the argument that almost all of those reading Herne Bay, Kent were likely to be British, and it was reasonable to switch over in those rare cases where the article had been written by an American, to serve the overwhelming majority. Similarly, Raritan Bay is most likely to be read (and written) by Americans. This does not apply here; the anglophone population of Sweden is a small part of our audience (and not all of them, I observe, read and write British), and indeed this article does not seem to have been written by a British-speaker. Leave well enough alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have left well enough alone by staying out of the revert war and commenting here. My argument still stands and has not been refuted: Swedes learn and speak British English. In that sense it is appropriate for an article closely connected to Sweden be written in the version of English used there.

I don't particularly care one way or another. However, I suspect that the warring and arguing will continue indefinitely until the author of this article agrees to convert the article to British. Had I been the author writing in American English, facing the argument I made, I would be amenable to such a conversion. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm American, and British spellings look all wrong to me (especially the different spelling of "defense", which I wasn't even aware of until this incident). But I have to say the logic seems to point toward the British version for this case. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:39, 26 Feb 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that we've reached consensus. Floker (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

From a swede

In school, we are supposed to be taught british english. But really, we don't care, as long as it is consistent. It is also the consensus of the Swedish Wikipedia IRC channel that you are all crazy to be bickering over this. Plrk (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent studies show that approximately 72% of arguments that take place on Wikipedia can be categorized as crazy bickering. In any event, thank you for the input. I'm curious to see how it affects the discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:33, 24 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Aj tink Svidish spelling shodd bi jost får diss artikl. Skägget (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

An English-to-Swedish chef translation of this article is available here. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

What could they POSSIBLY be charging them for with copyright infringement for WoW? The client can be downloaded from their site if you have a game key, and you can't use it without one. Since it's account based, why does it MATTER if someone downloads it? --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is put into the indictment (reference 23 at head of charges). It's in Swedish, but a Google translate does a fair job in showing:

3 B (Blizzard Entertainment Inc)
The defendants intentionally during July 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006 in Gothenburg and Stockholm promoted to other persons through transfers of Internet of a file containing computer game "World of Warcraft-Invasion", made a collecting protected harvesting of a computer program available to public and April 6, 2006 in Stockholm, also promoted to second people obtained copies of the program. The compliance and sample preparation has been an infringement of the exclusive right to make computer program available to the public and an infringement of the exclusive right to copy of the computer program that added the holder of the actual copyright.

If you search for the program referenced you'll find it's a copy of the WoW server code. You can run your own server that other clients can connect into. I'm not a WoW player, but I presume that this means that the clients then don't have to pay the monthly charge? At the very least, I'm not sure that the server code is a distributable program? Rurik (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds about right. Also, even for a free client program, the license might not include free distribution rights, if for whatever reason the company decides they want to be the only distributor. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:03, 24 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Could we add some information to that effect with a respective citation? I'm sure that more than a few people who are familiar with this rather widely played game will be like, "Uh, what? The company itself distributes this via BitTorrent...". – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would only add this IF there is a reliable source that makes this assertion...as right now this reads like original research. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment that Last I looked, The reverse engineered code isn't illegal in and of itself. I'm still not sure why WoW was drug into the case but I'm pretty sure it's not because of the server code since technically, It wasn't even written by blizzard. 173.89.208.229 (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I've removed this paragraph:

"English language reporting on the trial has been faulted as the only English language courtroom reporter, Oscar Schwartz, describes himself as "a leading critic of intellectual property" and an activist. Many articles in blogs and professional publications are based on his reports.(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/26/pirate_bay_neo_nazi)

The cited article doesn't (at least to me) seem too reliable. Until there is at least a second source for the story, it should be out.

Also, if it's going back in again, language like this "reporting on the trial has been faulted" should be avoided! (It's not only wrong but deceiving as well) Floker (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this article to remain a complete whitewash? Is anyone even going to pretend to some balance? How can you say it is "wrong" to say reporting has been faulted when I gave a source faulting it? That same source, The Register, is used four times in the Pirate Bay article and is generally pro-Pirate Bay. Why are they a good source when they same something pro-Pirate Bay and a questionable source when it is not so good? Why in this one case do you demand two sources when two sources are very rare in these articles?Objective3000 (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between sourcing facts and sourcing viewpoints. What Floker is describing is weasel words; using ambiguous or embellished language to describe a point of contention. There's also the weight issue. The question is, is this opinion prominent enough to warrant mention in the article? And is it actually a common enough viewpoint to justify such general language as "has been faulted"? There are editorial sources available that express every conceivable viewpoint on any topic; but we don't include them all in our articles. I don't think this section should remain in the article until more examples of criticism (this particular criticism or others) can be shown. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:48, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is ambiguous or embellished language, and unlike weasel words a source was provided. And that source has been used four times in the Pirate Bay article suggesting that the editors on this subject accept the source. I think it is important to point out that many, if not most, of the English-language sources for information on this subject originate from an admittedly biased source with an agenda. I avoided using any of the more inflammatory discussion of skinheads and Nazi's. Having said that, I am OK with the modifications.Objective3000 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words refers to the language used in the article, regardless of sources. Of course it's better to provide sources and that does address the issue to a point, but the right language still needs to be used to describe the sourced point. No one's really questioning the publication itself, but the particular article's editorial nature means it gets slightly different treatment than if it were a simple listing of facts. Again not all opinions deserve mention -- even those found in reliable sources. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:31, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I read the Register daily, and it is a rare article that does NOT include editorial comment.:) It would seem to me that this is a rather important opinion since it relates to sources of information about the subject in this article. In fact, the article appears to question the reliability of their own source.Objective3000 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

←Well regardless, this particular point is an editorial one, in contrast to other facts sourced with this publication. Anyway, again I'll just say I agree with Floker, that if this is a prominent enough viewpoint to include in the article, more than one source would mention it. I'll let others weigh in now though. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:51, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me the subject is more on-topic than how many flowers the wife of a witness received, and the name of the florist.:)Objective3000 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If how many flowers she received were an opinion, I might agree. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:58, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

The Register article supplies many references. It is an important topic. Flowers received by someone not even in the court and irrelevant to the trial is downright silly. The florist used to buy the flowers sent to a person unrelated to the trial or subject of the trial or any of the defendents in the trial is beyond silly.Objective3000 (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Silly or not, what happened with the flowers is a fact. The English press coverage being at fault is an opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:52, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

And I believe you are missing the point. I did not say English press coverage was at fault. I said it was faulted. It is a criticism in a criticism section. It is a "fact" that it is an opinion. Criticisms are always opinions. These srticles are becoming more and more one-sided. There are people spreading skull and crossbones images and images of a cartoon depicting copyright holders as fat men surrounded by moneybags that hate children and hate human rights. The articles on copyright and piracy have lost all semblence of neutrality. Anyone that attempts to bring some sort of balance has their changes removed. Meanwhile, we have a pointless section on flowers sent to the wife of a witness in a trial. It's not as though the witness experienced any tragedy. It was just the wife of an expert witness unrelated to anyone in the trial.Objective3000 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

←(ec with comment below)Your argument is circular. It's a fact that any opinion is an opinion. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't go finding out what people's opinions are and report on them. We report on the facts of an issue, not on what someone happens to feel about the issue -- unless his sentiments are more or less shared across other reliable sources. Encyclopedia articles simply don't include the odd editorial. Your opinion on the state of neutrality in the press of this issue may have merit, but it has no bearing on this article. Maybe the press is generally too biased -- but that shouldn't be a motivation to change the Wikipedia article accordingly. We're not here to push viewpoints or balance out the general press a topic has received. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:22, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a source used four times in the WP Pirate Bay article is questioning its own sources is highly relevant, particularly when this WP article uses the very source in question. This has nothing to do with general press bias. It releates specifically to sources used by this and related articles. It is a whitewash to pretend this criticism does not exist.Objective3000 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you didn't accuse people of whitewashing or pretending that things don't exist, just because we may not think they deserve to be in the article. I have no motivation to cover anything up and I don't even have an opinion one way or the other as to the neutrality of the reporting. I doubt your logic that if a Wikipedia article's primary source publication posts an editorial criticizing its own source then said Wikipedia article must mention that criticism (your contention that the publication seems to be criticizing itself seems a bit specious, frankly, and very much original research). However even assuming that were sound logic, the facts of this trial could easily be verified using many other reliable sources. The one that "seems to have published a criticism of itself", as you imply, is not the only choice. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:41, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I made no accusations against any specific person. I said nothing about your neutrality. And, I cannot find where I said "seems to have published a criticism of itself" even though you put it in quotes. The fact is that many of the sources used in these articles originate from one point. The neutrality of that one point has been brought into question by a source used four times in the Pirate Bay article. I cannot imagine why that fact would not be considered relevant and important to a fact-based publication.Objective3000 (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I said you implied it. Again, that specific source is replaceable with a source that doesn't carry the issue you describe. By your logic the problem could also be solved by replacing the sources in the article, and then there would be no need for the criticism section. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:28, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

First, I did not imply it - you inferred it. Second, please don't put words in quotes that were not said. The point of the criticism is that there may be a bias in a very large number of sources, not just one, if the only English-language court reporter has admitted a bias and an agenda.Objective3000 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

←It doesn't matter. The logic is faulty anyway. I brought that as an illustrative example. Yes, there "may be" a bias -- but that's an opinion that bears no significance if it's just been voiced by a single source. The fact is, this is an editorial expressing a lone opinion. It doesn't belong in the article. If you can find more reliable sources saying something similar, then that might be more significant. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:02, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

If the source is not reliable enough, why is it used four times in the Pirate Bay article. If the NYTimes was used as a reference, and wrote an article saying that it felt its sources and the sources of most stories carried on a subject were questionable, would it not make sense to mention? I do not understand why anyone would be against a criticism section pointing out possible problems with coverage available on a current event from a source that has been deemed reliable in a closely related article. Particularly since there are very few sources on this current event and many seem to originate from the same point. This appears irresponsible to me.Objective3000 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said the source wasn't reliable. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:23, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The source is purely an opinion piece. This opinion is not encyclopedically notable unless other sources report about it or present similar criticism. It should certainly not be presented as fact or given its own section in the article. Prolog (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is commenting on the sources for almost all English language reports, including its own reports that have been used as sources in WP. Why would you hide a criticism of sources used by WP that originated from the source itself? It would be like sourcing the NYTimes, and then ignoring that the NYTimes later questioned its own sources, but keeping the original references. Criticism of article sources is being hidden.Objective3000 (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep answering concerns over the opinion's prominence or credence by repeatedly touting its implications. Yes, it's a major thing to say, and yes, it would have significant implications for the article. We get that. But that still doesn't change the fact that only one guy is saying it. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:09, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you are saying. The problem is, that all sources that one can find on a Google search appear to come from one source. And that is exactly the problem described. Numerous websites have reports. But, they all quote three sources. One source is The Register. It gets its quotes from WiRed. One source is the Guardian. They get their info from WiRed. One source is TorrentFreak. They don't believe in copyright and rarely provide their source. So, the only documented source is WiRed. The Register states that even though WiRed is their source, they are now questioning their own source, and they provide a link to the WiRed reporter’s site where he admits to his bias and agenda. How can this not be relevant? It questions most of the sources used by this article. I am not stating anything as fact, other than a major source for information on the information in this article is called into question by a major user of that source and quoted source on related WP articles. It is in a Criticism section. Not labeled as fact, but as a criticism. Can you deny that it is, in fact, a criticism by a source accepted by WP on related articles? If the NYTimes hid the fact that sources of info were questioned, can you imagine the criticism that they would receive? Why would WP hide the fact that criticism of sources exist, when that criticism comes from an accepted WP source?Objective3000 (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you're basically making the same argument. It might be a big deal if the source used by all the other sources were being criticized by multiple reliable publications. But that still isn't the case. You could be right that the New York Times might count as prominent mention all its own, but that's because it's the New York Times. The Register is not the New York Times. One just has more clout than the other. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:36, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

My point was that an encylopedia should have at least the same ethics and balance as a newspaper, not the Register. Multiple reliable publications cannot have made any comments at all since there do not exist multiple reliable English-language publications reporting on this and I am talking about criticism of Enlish-language reporting. The only English-language sources I can find at all are The Guardian and the Register, and they both use the same questioned source. This trial has been largely ignored by the English-language press. It is simply not the Earth-shattering event portrayed by the defendents. I do not understand the motive of hiding criticism of the source from a user of that source that has been considered a reliable source by WP on this subject. Do you deny that there is criticism? And please do not tell me to get another source again when I have explained that sources all just copy the same questioned source. the source is in question. Why hide this fact?Objective3000 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

←There could certainly be multiple reliable publications mentioning a criticism like that. The Register isn't the only one covering this. It doesn't mater that they all use the same source. I will tell you that we do indeed need other sources for this -- meaning other publications that make the same criticism. For example, just as The Register uses one source and criticized it, other publications that use that source could criticize it as well. There's no "motive" to "hide" anything. You really need to get your mind away from that mode of thinking here, because that's not what's going on at all, and it's frankly offensive. I don't hide things. Just because we don't think something merits mention doesn't mean we're trying to hide it. Those are two very different things. I have not denied there is a criticism. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:06, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Sources need only pass the reliability and verifiability criteria. The Register and The Guardian seem to qualify on those counts. One other not mentioned above is Ars Technica, example article here, and seems to be making an effort at straight reporting.

An encyclopedia article shouldn't dwell on the veracity of the sources it uses. It should just use reliable and verifiable sources. When an article starts getting into criticizing the sources it uses, it becomes a meta-article. If there's a problem with the English langauge sources, there is nothing to prevent citing a non-English source. Online translators are freely available. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, The Register has been an acccepted reliable source. And yes, I have added a criticism because that accepted reliable source has questioned English-language reporting -- which it itself uses -- and I referenced that accepted reliable source. As I have explained, there is no other source for English-language reporting. The questioned source is that source. This is circular. How can I provide a second source for criticism when the criticism is that there is only one source and that it is questionable? And, how can a source be considered as reliable, except when it questions its own reliability? That seems backwards. Wouldn't that be the one time that it actually should be accepted as a lone source? Meanwhile, what appears to be the one source of English language reporting has admitted an agenda and bias on his own blog, and we are not allowed to mention that.Objective3000 (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is considered reliable. That's not in question. But not everything appearing in a reliable source gets thrown in to an article. There are other things to consider, and I've done my best to illustrate them. And again, as for the multiple-sources thing, copying and pasting from my last response: "For example, just as The Register uses one source and criticized it, other publications that use that source could criticize it as well." You're saying it's not possible for multiple publications to criticize Oscar Swartz. I say, yes, it certainly is possible. The Register did it, and others could, just as easily. You keep repeating that it can't happen, but you've yet to explain your reason for thinking that. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:47, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Wow, my eyes hurt after reading through all this lot. Now, i'm happy to see that no wars apart from a touch typing competition have broken out because of this, and especially happy that everything stayed reasonable and calm. I agree, the register have given excellent material but:

here's what i like to think of as the killer argument on the matter: the proposed 'fact' may very well be 100% true, but, given the nature of the matter, if it is in the article, it may only be worded very carefully, since it can easily be taken wrongly and what have you. But as i see it, the danger of it being wrong, given the extremely harmful nature of the critique, is enough to reason not to put it in. In other words, the chance of a mistake may not exceed 50%, but the penalty is disproportionate.

If it becomes a very well documented matter after the trial, if there are very many sources and the matter is pretty much considered fact, we should definitely have it in the article, but we should wait for this to happen (or not), and not rush it, just to have critique for the sake of itself.

Floker (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I can see a communication problem occurring in the above discussion and that is the ambiguity of the word "source". One side of the discussion is using the term to refer to the Register itself and arguing that if this source belongs in the article in one instance it belongs in the article in every instance where it has something to say about the trial. The other side of the discussion is using "source" alternately to mean the Register itself, or the specific editorial in the Register (forgive me if I've misunderstood). The "source"(meaning the register) is a perfectly acceptable source, it seems, in it's factual reporting, However, the "source" (meaning the editorial commentary) is not being treated as an acceptable source, not because of what opinion it holds or the implications of it, but rather because it is an opinion piece, rather than a factual reporting. Is this correct? 97.120.128.174 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, if I'm correct in the above would it reasonable to create a paragraph in which the fact that Oscar Schwartz is a) the only English language courtroom reporter and the fact that he is b) a "critic of intellectual property" by his own identification is mentioned without going into any opinion or biased language in regard to it? That is to say, the article could mention these facts as a neutral reality of the case and its reportage rather then a veiled or overt accusation of bias. Perhaps this could go in a "Media Coverage" section rather than a "Criticism" section. 97.120.128.174 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point -- one year ago.Objective3000 (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

With respect, if that was your point a year ago I'm afraid you weren't very successful in bringing it across. Admittedly, there might be something I missed in the above, on account of the fact that it was quite lengthy, but it seems that no mention was made of such a "compromise position" (if you understand my meaning).

Rather, what I've read seems to indicate that you were insistent upon including the facts in question as a criticism in a section by that name, with the "faulted" claim included. The argument you used that what is included on the matter is "Not labeled as fact, but as a criticism" seems to be leading in a direction directly opposite to my suggestion.

Please, don't misunderstand this as being a nitpicking over words. Rather, I'm pointing out reasons why your goal and meaning could have been easily misconstrued as a desire for the article to retain the text which begins "English language reporting on the trial has been faulted".

Add to this the sort of posture with which you responded from the beginning of the discussion onwards, that there was a "whitewash" or that things were being "hidden" and it's easy to see why gears might have ground a bit. I'd hazard to suggest you weren't assuming good faith on the part of your fellow editors and that they might, consequently, have reason to think you yourself were not arguing in good faith. Hence the appearance of an agenda on your part, rather than a seeking of a reasonable compromise and consensus.

Considering these points, if you made a suggestion akin to the one I have made above I hope that I and other editors can be forgiven for missing it in the confusion. In either case, if you wish to give support to such a suggestion now I welcome it. 97.120.149.97 (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Then it is I that missed your point. The Register, which has been accepted as a good source above, questioned the bias of its own reporter -- the source used in the majority of the WP article. This is an unusual step for a news source. Your suggestion muffles a rather important admission. Sort of like a very long ad extolling the benefits of a diet drug with tiny text at the end saying the drug will likely cause brain damage. I did not suggest that the article state that the source was wrong. I suggested that a statement be added that the main source of the WP article has been faulted for bias. This is very tame considering that the main source specifically admitted to an agenda in his blog and that the criticism came from the very news source that used the reporter. Had the NY Times written an article saying that the sole source of its reporting on a subject was likely biased, that would have been a major story. As it is, it has been a year now and there is no mention at all in the WP article that the source for the article has been faulted for bias by the very newspaper that "printed" the source articles.Objective3000 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the clarification. Now that we are mutually understood, I can say that I'm not unsympathetic to a desire for completeness, and the inclusion of dissenting voices. I also understand why you might be frustrated (if I can be forgiven for speculating on your feelings).

On the other hand, having read many of the arguments made on the other side of the issue I have seen excellent points made which have supported the removal of the material. The desire not to write a meta-article, or report on every opinion which has been written (regardless of the publication it appears in) is valid enough. Add to this the desire expressed by the editors supporting the edit to maintain a neutral voice (which I distinguish sharply from a "balanced" presentation of materials from "both sides" as is the mode in much news reporting) and the argument against the material becomes very solid, indeed.

Further, when one considers the communication barriers and occasionally combative tone of the previous debate and it's easy to see why, a year later, the consensus (such as it is) did not favor inclusion.

All the same, there may now be room for a new consensus which, while it may be insufficient for your liking, is closer to what you have sought than what has been achieved by holding fast to a specific desired outcome. To wit, a disclaimer in small print is better than none at all. 97.120.140.43 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you do not yet understand my position. In no way was I looking for or attempted to turn this into a "balanced article" or to present the presentation of materials from "both sides." In fact, I added nothing at all from another "side" and the Register is hardly a "dissenting voice." I believe they are anything but a dissenting voice. This has nothing to do with completeness. What I added was a disclaimer from the source publication for most of the information in the article. It simply makes no sense to me that a source should be used so heavily in an article when that source has questioned its own material without pointing out the question of bias raised by the source publication itself. I also do not see how the editors have attempted to "maintain a neutral voice." It seems quite the opposite as they wanted questionable material to remain without any disclaimer.Objective3000 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive any misunderstanding, please. And further, be assured I hadn't intended to misrepresent your position, nor even to speculate on that position except insofar as it was necessary in expressing my own.

Further, I do congratulate you for not employing the portions of the article source which discusses Nazis and the like (I hadn't followed the link until recently and was quite surprised at the tone and content).

Nevertheless I shouldn't be surprised that this source article, employing ad hominim attacks, guilt-by-association, inflammatory name calling ("freetards") and even verging on reductio ad hitlerum (if one acknowledges the neologism) provoked the response it did regardless of the admirable restraint you showed in your citation of it. I should like, myself, to see the same facts regarding the reporter Oscar Schwartz from a less biased and inflammatory article. After all, whatever one thinks of Pirate Bay I hope we can agree that Mr. Orlowski has written an article that provokes at least as much as it informs. I digress, in any case, and do not hope to open a debate on the merits of the source article.

That having been said, I'm afraid there seems to be no means of reaching a consensus on this issue. I have made my case for a presentation of facts without accusation of fault and it does not satisfy you. As the editors with whom you've disagreed have been satisfied with the wikipedia article's current form for more than a year, I don't imagine they'll weigh in unilaterally to alter it. This means that unless those dissatisfied with the article demonstrate a good faith effort to compromise, the existing consensus regarding the article will simply stand.

As for me, the whole matter is rather academic from my standpoint. The (wikipedia) article could be improved but is not deeply flawed, if you take my meaning. My position is neither opposed nor in concurrence with those that have already been expressed. So if on the prevailing side of this discussion no compromise is sought and on the other no compromise is acceptable, then there is nothing left to discuss. I hope my suggestion of a third option has not taken up too much of anyone's time. 97.120.140.43 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I respect your comments. But, I do not think you have looked back at the history of these pages. You criticized the referenced article by taking the worst parts of it in quotes, while ignoring that quotes like this exist in many, if not most, of the articles used as sources here. That is the style of The Register and TorrentFreak, the main sources of this article, and is exactly my point. The sources for this article should embarrass WP editors. In fact, TorrentFreak is used as the most common source in the Pirate Bay articles, despite the fact that it calls the music industry the Mafia, Nazis, baby haters, etc., and virtually never provides its sources. In one TPB Wiki article, editors actually refused to remove a cartoon showing anyone with a copyright as a rich, money-grubber stomping on babies.

Throughout this discussion, editors have not assumed good faith. They “appear” to assume that anyone not posting purely pro-piracy wording must be anti-piracy. As if there was no middle ground and can be no attempt at even suggesting bias. This is not a surprise. The article was written during the trial and the editors attracted to the page during this emotional period are likely to have an agenda. Yes, I assume good faith. Until it is proved otherwise.

The simple fact that the editors have refused to include the main source’s own mea culpa strongly suggests that they have an agenda. How can you heavily use a source, and refuse to include that very source’s comment that they question their source? Once again, I did not ask for the inclusion of an opinion from a different source. I posted the very source’s OWN questioning of their OWN material.

BTW, if you are interested in Oscar Schwartz, you can read his own blog where he uses the very same terminology that you decry. And yet, he is the main source for this WP article. You can also look into the owners of TPB to see why terms like Neo-Nazi were used. One of the owners was the main contributor to the "Sweden for Swede's Party," dedicated to removing all non-Whites from Sweden, and also associated with the Skinheads movement. Which is to say, as much as I dislike throwing around words like neo-Nazi, it may not qualify as an ad hominem in this particular case.

The reason that this discussion is over a year old without added comment until this week, is that it became clear to me that there was no interest in removing bias from this article. In my mind, this is a failure of WP. I moved on. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, kindly. You are quite correct that I wasn't especially well versed in the history of this disagreement, nor had I gone pouring over the article sources employed. That I entered as a casual commenter on the discussion as it exists here on this discussion page (with no other context) is readily admitted now, and I hope not concealed prior.

As for the article, again I don't wish a debate of its merits (whether in isolation or in the context of other employed sources), but I will say that ad hominem doesn't imply an untruth, just a focus on the person rather than the position, If I'm understood. To wit, rather than discussing the merits of the Pirate Bay's position on copyright law the article focused on the qualities of the person advocating that position. This is ad hominem.

Of course, that the article did employ an ad homimem attack bears no importance on the larger issue of whether the information on Oscar Shwartz should be included. But it seems we're both, for our respective reasons, prepared to leave that matter as it is. As I said, it is academic to me, so that is satisfactory. Thank you again for both the information and your regards. May you be well. 198.236.244.101 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

New fraud case

A fraud case has just been brought against the RIAA. I'm not sure how this affects the topic, since the Pirate Bay trial takes place in Europe, but I thought people paying attention here might be interested. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:33, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

i haven't read all about it, but as i see it, it doesn't have much to do with tpb. That is given i haven't missed anything. It's definitely interesting though, it should be integrated in the mpaa article, which is pretty much a stub (in the context of the size of the matter) Floker (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Shut down of The Pirate Bay?

As of late evening the 2nd of March The Pirate Bay cannot be reached any longer. I guess that is news to be included in the article? Has anyone any details on what has happened? Court order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.198.5 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It goes down all the time. There's no reason to think this has anything to do with the trial. If you want to keep up with all the downs and ups see the forum, [3], [4]. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:47, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Only the site is down. Trackers are still up. It is a technical issue. More information can be found at http://torrentfreak.com JeremyWJ (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Article on tf also talks about how the downtime doesn't have anything to do with the trial. Now, we'll see if we get similar news for different reasons in the next weeks, i'm looking forward to the verdict. And not only to finish this article. Floker (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

plaudit for fourth and fifth day sections

i just thought i might add some commendation for the fourth and fifth day sections of the article. i don't feel comfortable enough with the article yet to write the other missing sections, but those two paragraphs i find very good. appearantly they're made by User:Equazcion and an IP-user. Floker (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

`Preciate the commendation but I actually didn't have anything to do with those. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:24, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

explanation of king kong defense

Does anyone else find the explanation to be incredibly redundant? The explanation just seems to repeat the actual quote.--68.56.17.70 (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They decided to merge the article about the king kong defense into this article a week or so ago. That is why it is covered like it is. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Protection?

Why hasn't anyone moved to edit protect this page? Vandals are running wild —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.40.199 (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

News for the article

- The verdict has been appealed by Carl Lundström. - The court has filed a complaint at the police. Somebody leaked the verdict before 11:00CEST. - The Swedish pirate party gained 3000 new members during the day and are now 3 largest politcal party in sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.188.185 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

I'm a little confused. Why would this be pirated at all given the nature of the game (i.e. requires an active CD key and is available for free download if you possess a key)? If it was inserted as a joke or vandalism then it should be taken out. Narco (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many server emulators for WoW and WoW is indeed often pirated (check out piratebay or any other torrent site0. If it was included in the case then it should be in the article or if there is a lot more then what we are listing then we need to consider whether the specific information is actually that important Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Verdict and reactions section is terribly biased and completely one-sided

Why are there no reactions from the media organizations, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.123.46 (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a rather general statement but the "media organizations" appear to have the same reaction to most of these situations. They just wait for the results (or sometimes not even that long) and then do a PR bit about how they won no matter what the results were. The best example of this is probably the MPAA after the pirate bay servers were confiscated. Afterwards they released statements saying how they had succeeded and that pirates get punished yet the pirate bay was back up in 3 days with twice as many members (free advertising anyone?). Although yes I agree their statements and reactions should still be added to provide both points of view. I would do it but I have a feeling it would be rather biased so it would be best left to someone else. Adimus28 (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the reactions of the affected parties and the general public are far more relevant than the reactions of the media organizations, who have little direct stake in the matter. If someone can find a reaction from an organization representing the artists who would ostensibly be affected by this (meaning: one which is actually controlled by artists, not one which controls the artists), that would likely also be relevant. Esn (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Name

Sorry but "The Pirate Bay trial" is frankly a stupid name. The article should follow the naming convention of other court case articles: "Sweden v. The Pirate Bay" or whatever the Swedish Case naming equalvilent is. --68.209.2.187 (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

IFPI v The Pirate Bay. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the name should be changed.--69.161.78.31 (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Alphageekpa (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the name should be changed to the name of the actual name of the case. --Sauronjim (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The court refers to the case as "Mål nr B 13301-06". For the press they refer to it as "Rättegången i det s.k. Pirate Bay-målet"[5] (Trial in the so called Pirate Bay case). I can't find them, the Swedish or English media using the vs. notation anywhere. --Para (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In Sweden you never talk about vs. in law. And the trial is known as "The pirate bay trial" already. A name change would only cause confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.188.185 (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, all the swedish newspapers and so use the pirate bay-rättegången as title, and translating it to anything else then the pirate bay trial would be confusing for both swedish users and others. Evalowyn (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose this. It known mostly as "the pirate bay trial" to most people. The name is not stupid, its what everyone knows. I see no reason to change it. JeremyWJ (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Appeal for defense claims evidence is fraudulent

http://blog.brokep.com/2009/10/08/fail-in-nl/ has an effect on this case. The appeal may be a very quick process. I will update soon but if anyone has more time and better fingers than me, I say get to it. I'm throwing a current tag up.Dragonnas (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's about The Pirate Bay#The Netherlands and not about the Swedish case covered in this article. --Para (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs update

Max Andersson, member of the Committee on the Constitution in the Parliament of Sweden, requested the committee to review the incident. The committee will arrange a hearing in spring 2010.

Spring 2010 has already passed. --PabloCastellano (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Update

The second trial is currently going on and will end in mid October. Update? Quispiam (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

USPP Class Plans to Update

A group of students working on the WP:USPP project from UCB plan to update this article to include information up to and on the appeal. We are aware that this trial isn't precisely USPP, but we got approval to update the article because of its importance. We'll probably start editing within the next month. Any help or suggestions are appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaloryth (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

IFPI website attack.

IFPI's website has been brought down again in response to the verdict, and has been noted by a number of outlets.

Is there a statement or response from IFPI or related organizations in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.196.220 (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

thepiratebay.se is down as of 27JUN2012

FYI: the entire site is down here in California as of the above said date; not sure if this is temporary. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.180.229 (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's up here in Europe. __meco (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Pro-copyright Judge?

I was surprised to read the intro section "The case was decided jointly by a judge who was a member of several pro-copyright organisations ...". Is there any English support for this? There are two Swedish articles but as I don't read Swedish they could say anything. Plus surely such a degree of bias would invalidate the case. I'm definitely not saying it isn't true but it does seem peculiar. 118.208.167.54 (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Believing in the law is not bias.Objective3000 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the judge was biased. Especially since they were charged with a law that didn't actually exist and they were incapable of being charged with. Even somewhat apathetic anit-piracy politicians were appalled by this case due to the complete, open disregard for Swedish law. The judge should have legally been dismissed from the case the moment his connections (that he illegally didn't establish with the court) to the plantiffs became known. Not to mention the clear-cut fact that the case should have been overturned after it became publically known. Whats worse is that despite the clearly biased, illegal handling by the judge, the case itself charged the defendants with a crime that didn't exist in Swedish law. A lot of people in Sweden are finding the trial a farce and a terrible erosion of Swedish rights and law, regardless of the piracy aspect. Hopefully soon this judge will be fired and the verdict completely overruled. 203.59.35.207 (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Please take this elsewhere.Objective3000 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Try harder, Objective. Next time come up with an argument. 124.169.92.155 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Int21h edits

Int21h's edits and edit comments suggest that the entire Swedish Court system is corrupt/biased and this is why multiple courts ruled against TPB. Absurd charges were made against a living judge. Those charges were heard by an appelate court and rejected. The judge was cleared. The claims that the first Swedish judge, then the appelate judges, then the entire Swedish judicial system are all corrupt/biased have been used as an excuse for the conviction of TPB. The added refs now suggest the entire judicial system in Europe is at fault. TPB lost. They were found guilty. It is not acceptable for an encyclopedia to repeat such wild conspiracy theories. This is an article on one trial. Critiques of the entire European criminal system in a trial with an unsurprising verdict make no sense and most probably libel living persons.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)