Ianmacm, I agree with nearly all of your edits. But not the removal of a warning that your PC may be damaged if you click on a link. Following is one of the warnings I receive:

We blocked this dangerous page for your protection: https://astoundweighadjoining.com/ Dangerous pages attempt to install software that can harm the device, gather personal information or operate without your consent.

That is one of the links in popups that can be forced when you click on the link in our article. TPB rotates popups so which, if any, you get is not predictable. Here is the VirusTotal report on that link: [5]. I do not believe WP:NODISCLAIMERS applies as this is not a statement that the article is not appropriate, suitable, or guaranteed. It is a simple note that clicking on a specific link is dangerous without adequate and up to date antivirus software. If we must include a link that can damage your PC, the least we can do is warn that the link is dangerous. To not include a warning is irresponsible, at the least. rgds, O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I am worried about WP:NODISCLAIMERS here, because all external links on Wikipedia cannot be guaranteed safe as Wikipedia has no control over them. All articles are covered by the General Disclaimer linked at the foot of every page, which says that "all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever." I was also looking at Talk:The_Pirate_Bay#Request_for_comment_for_The_Pirate_Bay_link_on_page, which did not reach a firm conclusion on whether the link was dangerous. As I said, I could not set off warnings with Bitdefender Traffic Light.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I've been getting warnings from BitDefender for three months on that link. They don't always occur. It depends on which popup their server forces. We have a boilerplate disclaimer because mistakes can be made. But like the false disclaimer on restaurant cloakrooms ("not responsible for lost or damaged items") such disclaimers have little meaning. Of course the restaurant is responsible and of course we are if we knowingly endanger a reader. Bitdefender Traffic Light is the free version. As I understand it, it flags links based on urls it has tested in the past. BitDefender marks the url thepiratebay/index.html as a safe url as there is no malware on that specific page. However, if you have the paid version of BitDefender, it also checks the forced popups, issues a warning and blocks any damage. This is why VirusTotal shows BitDefender claiming thepiratebay url as safe but the popups as malware. You need to pay to get the real antivirus version. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Another problem here is WP:OR. There need to be secondary reliable sources, rather than experiments with antivirus programs and browser plugins. As I've said before, I'm not disputing that some antivirus programs may set off warnings about TPB, but there needs to be secondary sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[]

There is an OR problem if we state in the text your PC will be damaged. I don't know about a link warning. I think there are many sources that says TPB links to malware. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I'm sure those sources aren't talking about pop-up adds. Further actions would be needed to download software and damage a PC. Sketchy pop-up advertisements are a fact of the internet across many sites, and it's not a general practice to put disclaimers on links with such ads across Wikipedia. I'm not sure why we'd single out this site over others. MrOllie (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I get popups every day without any notification from BitDefender. Except for TPB. Simply clicking on the link in this article, I get a message from BitDefender saying that it blocked a URL. The URL is launched by the TPB server. There is no needed action by the user other than clicking on the link here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@MrOllie There is zero reason to have a disclaimer for pop up ads or alleged malware.

- WP:NODISCLAIMERS clearly states that:

For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicate the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages:

WP:RISK

The authors may not be qualified to provide you with complete information or to inform you about adequate safety precautions and other measures to prevent injury, or other damage to your person, property, or reputation.

- This is blatant original reasearch that editor @Objective3000 has been pushing for months, without ever trying to correct their course of actions. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I don't see anything in our disclaimers that warn that your PC may be infected if you click on a link. Therefore, adding such a warning is not against NODISCLAIMERS. And please be civil in your responses. Following is a sampling of warnings about being infected by either downloading from, clicking on an ad served, or even being redirected by TPB without any action on your part: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Have you read the quotes I've put in green? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[]

The articles you have linked refer to various different stories. Again, I ask very civilly, have you read them? Regarding that one instance in 2016:

Malvertisers place fraudulent ads with third-party ad networks, with the aim of having them distribute the ads to high-traffic sites.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/pirate-bay-visitors-infected-with-crypto-ransomware-via-bad-ads/

Malware in programs are a different story. The crypto script on homepage yet another different story.

What's the only thing that these stories have in common?

None of them grant for a disclaimer on an home page link, as Wikipedia policy clearly explains. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Of course I read them in their entirety, not just the small cherry-picked phrases you quoted comprising less than 1% of their text. You asked for sources. I provided ten (10) sources clearly warning that the site has been dangerous over a long period of time. This is NOT in any manner covered by the WP general disclaimer linked to in small letters at the very bottom of this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Articles from 2016 does not confirm your original research in 2024.

Anyway the policy is clear as to not have disclaimers of this kind. I've explained it enough.

I'll stop replying and just revert your edits since you have been tone deaf for months. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[]

You are going to need to stop these attacks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[]

In April 2009, the website's founders Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Svartholm were found guilty in the Pirate Bay trial in Sweden for assisting in copyright infringement and were sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine.^[2] They were all released by 2015 after serving shortened sentences.^[3]

Shortened sentences would mean that they were released before April 2010 (the original sentence was one year) what is going on? 68.4.124.121 (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[]

They were tried in their absence, and it took some time before the authorities got their hands on them and made them begin serving their sentences. This is explained in the article if you read further down. MrOllie (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I tweaked the wording in a few instances:

1. clearly stating we do not list mirror sites, only the single official address.
2. I kept how we only change our address if and when a reliable source tells us TBP changed their address
3. the fact we don't list mirrors should IMO be less because mirror sites contain malware (the official site can contain just as much or little malware so that reeks of FUD; the sources are IMO misused here - it is synthesis to claim that just because mirrors contain malware, that means the official site is safe while mirrors are not), but simply because Wikipedia is not a catalog
4. remove the example mirror... because otherwise we do list that mirror! Instead I simply summarized the reasons why we wouldn't list mirrors even if that was a thing. Also I added a common reason why mirrors are looked down upon (they let users access sites whose official addresses are unreachable in their country)

I do think, however, we should look around on how other sites are handled. Just to give one example: if we provide a mirror for a journalism site that is banned in some country, because we want Wikipedia readers to acess that site, we should probably do the same for TPB. Wikipedia isn't censored, after all.

84.217.39.2 (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[]

What about the oficial Onion URL? We also have an special entry for it and other sites also have its Onion URL listed. Sergiogarciadev (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[]

For the safety of users reading this Wikipedia article, I have removed mentions of TPB's URL from the Infobox, and the "Official website" entry under the "External links" section.

There was a time in history the removed URL was indeed the official URL.

However, as of this post's timestamp, the website pointed by the now-removed URL contains in-page popup dialogs, that redirect to malicious websites when clicked.

It seems that TPB has a list of alternative URLs/domain names, which can be used to access the site. From these alternative URLs, the same malicious popup dialogs do not seem to exist. It is likely that the removed URL is no longer pointing to the genuine TPB website, and possibly no longer owned by the people behind TPB.

If an official URL is to be put back into the article, please ensure that it is indeed official, and safe for users to navigate to.

In my opinion, it is of paramount importance that external links from Wikipedia articles are legit and safe. 223.25.71.124 (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[]

Like a lot of websites, it has pop-up ads. That isn't a reason to remove the link. MrOllie (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[]

I have tried to remove this in the past. Click on the link and you get repeated warnings. Last I tried, Bitdefnder blocked it stating it was dangerous. Now there are random fake block popups that demand you download something. For the life of me, I do not understand why we include a dangerous link to a site where all the founders were found guilty of felonies. This article has always been a problem as some WP editors do not believe in intellectual property rights. This is not an accusation against anyone. But it is a very long term problem with this article. Seriously, anyone can Google piratebay and find it. Why do we have to help people commit illegal acts and risk damage to their devices when it serves no purpose? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[]

I tried to add the Onion URL and it was flagged as potentially unconstructive.

The Onion URL has fewer ads and other well know torrent sites has its Onion URL listed. Sergiogarciadev (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[]