text:
Talk:British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations

Link to CS
Britští poskytovatelé internetového připojení cenzurují Wikipedii —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.131.14 (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OR
Brought to light in IRC, and on Wikipedia --Brian McNeil / talk 19:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I dragged some info from the previously deleted article on child porn that was leaked to Wikileaks. Since that was originally our work, and OR, I am putting the source here: Wikinews suppressed Wikipedia pornography investigation. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As proof of who is responsible, when accessing that Virgin Killer image I get http://iwfwebfilter.thus.net/error/blocked.html as a Demon user. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Not just Wikipedia
Based on the comments on the admin noticeboard on WP, it affects every Wikimedia site except http://wikimediafoundation.org. So probably all the publicly editable Wikimedia sites are affected. Mr.Z-man (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Only one article is actualy blocked.Geni (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Only one article is *confirmed* to be blocked. Others might be but there are over 1.whatever million articles on WP currently and no list of blocked pages is published. --AlisonW (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Move this please
Inflammatory, inaccurate (IMO) headline. Has anybody else called it this? To clarify, I mean the "Great Firewall of Britain" bit. Tombomp (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No keep it; it's accurate. This form of censorship is similar to China's firewall. 62.30.249.131 20:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FFS, this is probably just one person's cock up, not an attempt to 'censor' the place. Can I urge calm here before you create a storm that doesn't exist? 212.134.155.210 20:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * china's firewall is run by the goverment (and rather better at what it does).Geni (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This organization receives funding from both the British government and the EU as a whole (as well as from ISPs). It is, therefore, to all intents and purposes a(n albeit unofficially) government sanctioned organization. Gopher65talk 20:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You've just described Sinn Féin as goverment sanctioned. For very solid legal and political reasons the IWF cannot be considered a goverment body.Geni (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, this isn't comparable to the Chinese firewall, which blocks all of Wikipedia. This blocks a handful of pages, and if not for the transparent proxy, would otherwise be almost unnoticeable. Mr.Z-man (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article appears to be filled with a great deal of logical leaps and random examples. Yes, it /could/ be like that, but is anyone reporting a problem? Is there any confirmation on this at all other than gossip on WP:AN? Narson (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec'd through multiple redirect moves) Of course there is confirmation - please research harder before posting. See | Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses 86.130.0.93 21:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, an AN thread on en-wiki, surely highly accurate. Never mind it's all speculation! PS I think it kind of sucks moving without even vaguely trying to talk here Tombomp (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So....your response to my 'Is there any confirmation on this...other than gossip on WP:AN?' would be 'Yes, don't be silly! Look at this gossip on WP:AN'? I'm going to trim out some of the more ludicrous silliness...will someone work on moving this back to the less The Sun headline? Or at the very least, be honest and add 'Tits on Page 3' to the front of WikiNews. Narson (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly you couldn't be bothered to actually read the thread. The multiple en.wikipedia admins and established users who confirm that when logged out they are affected are only trivial confirmations in this context, but this is confirmation in the context of breaking news nevertheless. 86.130.0.93 21:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Narson. Nothing is confirmed yet, just amateur sleuthing on Wikipedia, the main crux of which comes from a blog posting about torrents. Nobody from the IWF or the ISPs has confirmed or denied anything yet. (And the headline is tabloidy, come on) Woody (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever is going on it is censorship. Interesting to note, while I can't view the Virgin Killer article directly, I can still view the history page and see the image. 62.30.249.131 21:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I've moved the article to "UK ISPs censor Wikipedia" since it is less sensationalist and more accurate (as far as I know, just one page on one language version of one project is blocked, that's hardly "Wikimedia sites"). --Tango (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, but the Ip allocating does affect many Wikimedia sites. 776@62.30.249.131 21:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Who's blocked, who isn't?
Let's try and gather some data on who is and isn't blocked. I can access the page from my Uni connection (which is via JANET). My mum cannot access it from her connection with Orange. --Tango (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't access from home but can from my local library. Also, to prevent confusion I'll sign as 776@62.30.249.131 21:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That IP is from Telewest. --Tango (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This IP isn't blocked. It's Tiscali. Same location, different ISP (I've switched wireless networks) 776@79.75.250.215 21:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Virgin Media, ex-Telewest. Ostensibly set up to not use their proxies but have a 'direct' connection. --AlisonW (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, you are blocked from that ISP? (You said so by email, but just to have it all in one place.) --Tango (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am blocked from the page Virgin Killer on that cable connection. I am also blocked from that page (with a 403) connecting via an O2 mobile dongle (on GPRS/EDGE network). In both cases other pages appear accessible, as it not using the shortform for the page (ie the '/w/index.php?title=' route) --AlisonW (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: In both cases this is as a globally logged-in admin user. --AlisonW (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * O2, "The requested URL en.wikipedia.org was not found on this server." --89.167.221.3 21:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you're blocked from the whole of en.wikipedia.org? 776@62.30.249.131 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparentally fake 404's are one of the ways that the blocks appear. TheFearow (userpage) 22:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg give that error, the rest of Wikipedia works fine. --89.167.221.3 23:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Same deal from Be (but seeing as they're basically o2 broadband, it's to be assumed.)--89.167.221.3 14:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I can access the page and image from my flat (via the BT network).  [ジャム] [talk] 22:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: As of 10pm today, I can't access the page.  [ジャム] [talk] 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Page has been accessible from ThePhone.Coop all day. 86.53.37.59 15:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I can access the page, but get a 403 on the image via Demon Internet:
 * Access Denied (403)

 * We have blocked this page because, according to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), it contains indecent images of children or pointers to them; you could be breaking UK law if you viewed the page.
 * What To Do

 * If you were directed to this site by an email or another site, then you should consider reporting the email or site to the Internet Watch Foundation. Visit their web site (http://www.iwf.org.uk) for details about how to do this.

 * This blocking service is provided solely for the protection of our customers. We have not recorded that you attempted to visit this site, nor will we be taking any further action. You can find more information about the IWF list of URLs to block here: http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.148.htm.
 * Demon is a brand of THUS plc
 * --Arwel (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also if you might be affected, a good way to tell is to log out of your account and try to edit anonymously. That will do one or two things 1) not let you edit 2) or let you edit, but will be with an IP you never used before. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Media blocks me with a "The page cannot be displayed" error message (no indication that this is due to a block). 62.30.249.131 02:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

STOP MOVING
STOP MOVING THIS PAGE UNLESS THE MOVING MEMBER CAN BE BOTHERED TO GO BACK AND REDIRECT TOO THE MOVED AREA. THANK YOU 62.24.251.240 21:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Images available on Amazon.com
I just did a check and you can find the images (larger, in fact!) on Amazon.com for the Scorpions' album. , and, indexed from the albun page --AlisonW (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, though, if you search for "Scorpions Virgin Killer" on amazon.co.uk the results bring up the version of the album showing the band rather than the girl on one version of the album, and all the others are "no image available". -- Arwel (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Speculation
The article mentions a number of other nude child images, yet none of these have been blocked by the great firewall of the UK. Should mention of them be removed? It seems like speculation to me. --71.163.150.202 22:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I tried to remove the reference to Child Bride but was reverted. It is just plain speculation, in fact the only thing we know is that IWF haven't blacklisted that page/image yet (given that I'm affected by the IP switch and can still see it, and no one else has reported issues with it either). Nor do I think they would, to be illegal an image has to be of a child "involved in sexual activity or posed to be sexually provocative", and though I haven't seen the film, this just appears to be skinny dipping. AFAIK there have been no complaints to Wikipedia about the image on that page either, except for one. the wub "?!"  00:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence?
Where is there any evidence that the IWF has blacklisted Wikipedia? Adambro (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The ISPs effected, are all on the list of ISP's publicly stating that they are participating in the filter. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See above comment by Arwel @ 22:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC). -- Sken   my talk 22:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * To be precise, the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer is blocked via some UK ISPs but in its alternate form (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer it is still available. other pages may or may not also be blocked; trial and error is required to find any. --AlisonW (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I have proof. My ISP (Demon) reroutes me to the IWF's website to tell me I can't view that as the IFW reckon it contains child porn. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Users of Demon ISP are getting this link: http://iwfwebfilter.thus.net/error/blocked.html, so we have proof that the IWF is responsible. Gopher65talk 23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm definately being routed through a proxy when editing here on Wikinews: (diff) (hist). . User:Skenmy; 23:09. . (0) . . 213.249.193.2 (Talk | block) (dummy edit to test IP address) That was me, the IP, however, is not mine. -- Sken   my talk 23:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Was this erected "to censor Wikipedia"?
I'd question the headline as being incredibly wikimedia-centric? Where is the evidence that the firewall was erected specifically with wikipedia in view? Certainly it has been applied to, and impacts on, wikimedia. But is this whole initiative aimed at wikipedia? Or is it an initiative aimed at blocking images deemed unacceptable, of which wikipedia hosts one?

My other question would be, when did wikinews become a tabloid? The headline is corny, self-referential, overly-dramatic sensationalism. I don't visit wikinews a lot, but if this is the general standard, perhaps that's as well.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the title is corny and could stand to be changed, but in what way is it self-referential? We ARE NOT Wikipedia. We don't even have the same copyright licensing scheme, and we certainly don't have the same rules. In fact, our primary goal is diametrically opposed to that of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is "No OR under any circumstances", we are "As much OR as possible". That's as different as you can get. We just happen to be using the same software as Wikipedia. Gopher65talk 23:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * So stop writing as if wikipedia was the center of your world..--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to respond to a very old comment - bluntly. Scott says he doesn't know what Wikinews does - the last statement is made in blissful ignorance. I'm sick of that crap from Wikipedians - yes, he ain't the only one. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Early review
As I am going to bed, here is an unsolicited peer review:

 * I have corrected the Wikipedia issue. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Corrected the title as well. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The other sites aren't news - the IFW has been doing that for ages, and properly against child porn, so far as we know. On the other hand, the addition of WMF stuff to the list *is* news as it only just happened, and is pretty borderline at our most generous. The same would be true for any other popular or borderline or controversial site, but not by any means for anything at all on the list - to the best of our knowledge, it's just a bunch of child porn. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree, the other sites are not the news. I'm sure there are many sites on that blacklist that host loads of kiddie porn. But this is about a historic album cover which is being described in an encyclopedia. I would support stating something along the lines of "Wikimedia is now on a blacklist that includes some 800-1200 websites that host images that are deemed by the IWF as unsuited/illegal in the UK. TheDJ (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh, and someone should list a bit on when the problem started (I think december 4, 20:45 GMT) (see contrib histories of the 6 IPs of the filters). How wikipedia Administrators discovered the problems and started an AN thread. How we found out it was the IWF (a google of the filter IP, whois of the eaysnet filter ip, and today the error report presented by demon). TheDJ (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First anon edit from behind the filter. December 4th, 20:45 CET TheDJ (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Other thing. Reaction of Mike Godwin/Foundation would be nice. And something along the lines of "Wikipedia is unlikely to bow to internet censorship, as long as the material is legal in the US". and " Wikimedia has much experience in dealing with filtering systems in countries such as China, Iran, etc." Perhaps name the requests to remove all images of mohammed from all our articles. TheDJ (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Title
Based on the above I am going to suggest British ISPs censor Wikipedia after watchdog makes child porn allegations. Thoughts? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest "UK ISPs censor Wikipedia after allegations of child porn by watchdog group". Gopher65talk 23:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We need a consensus. SO here is my suggestion: UK ISPs censor Wikimedia sites after allegations of child porn by watchdog group DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But they have only censored one page of one Wikimedia site. Sending everyone through a proxy isn't censoring (it's very annoying for us, but it doesn't prevent those users from viewing pages). Saying "sites" is simply incorrect. --Tango (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I shall agree with you and BRS :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also agree. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The current title ("Great Wall") is overly sensationalist and highly inaccurate. They have not erected it for Wikipedia, onyl activated it. The IWF has been around for a long time, it has just gone unnoticed until now. It is not all of Wikipedia either, it is only two pages, the main issue with Wikipedia is that this voids most of the anti-vandalism measures as we have one IP for a hell of a lot of people who would usually edit from individual IPs. This current title makes a mockery of this website in my opinion. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well its going to be any WP page that has 'offensive' material, so for the moment, unless we hear back from the IWF then I think we can assume that more will be effected, if not already. At the moment users are only focusing on those two pages. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * "offensive material" is not considered a valid blocking reason for the IWF. One of the reasons we were able to locate the page blocked was it was know, as a bit of an edge case. I wouldn't expect much else to be blocked.Geni (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What about UK ISPs enable 'Great Firewall of Britain' to censor Wikipedia Since the thing has already been in place for ages of course. This is just the first time it's used this obviously. TheDJ (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Don't care about the precise wording, just anything other than this sensationalist and plain wrong "Great Wall" nonsense. the wub "?!"  00:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I like BRS's title...but I also like brian's Wall title too. If consensus is for BRS's then I say lets do it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I renamed this back and protected it because there have been some god-awful renames that almost had a "please don't read this!" subtext. This is Wikinews, not Wikipedia... THIS IS SPARTA!!!! Be bold, sell the story, don't serve it up cold. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to hurry...already have a story on it: UK ISPs switch on mass Wikipedia censorship. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * It is incorrect in fact to say "UK ISPs erect 'Great Firewall of Britain' to censor Wikipedia" as it hasn't been done solely to censor WP. "UK ISPs 'Great Firewall of Britain' censors Wikipedia" would, however, be accurate as WP is one of the sites caught in this. --AlisonW (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My point exactly, not to mention the fact that this is hardly a "Great Firewall of Britain" which is truely sensationalist trash. Woody (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am against any mention of "Great Firewall of Britain", Wikinews is not a sensationalist tabloid. If someone else uses the phrase then it might be appropriate to quote them, but we shouldn't be making up such names ourselves. --Tango (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not Wikipedia. We do news, we allow original reporting, and creative titles are encouraged. The title was only sensationalist if you live in a library and mainline the dust off reference editions. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Things we need before publishing
2) We should also get a reaction from Mike Godwin or the Foundation (I'm about to head out so someone else should email him). 2) The article should explain how this is connected to the issue of most of Great Britain now going through a handful of IP addresses when they access Wikipedia in general and mention the technical inconvenience that is creating. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * E-mailed godwin. 2) We do. We need to publish quick before everyone else does. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, if we don't get Godwin to email back in the next 10 minutes or so I suggest we publish as is with a note that we are waiting for an official comment from the Foundation. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had made a similar suggestion up here. I'm going to bed in a few minutes, so i won't really be able to help either. Besides, I'm a terrible writer :D TheDJ (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

ZDNet's take: "UK ISPs switch on mass Wikipedia censorship"
It's out there now, a Google News search came up with this: http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10009938o-2000331777b,00.htm?new_comment 62.30.249.131 00:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

ISPs censoring
I'm unsure if my ISP is on the list, so I figured I'd tell you guys. I'm using Orange (nee Wanadoo (nee Freeserve)) and the pages are blocked. I'm unsure if Orange might have changed its name again to be one of the ISPs listed. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you make an edit as an anonymous user on w:Wikipedia:Sandbox to find out what the IP address of the internet filter is (check the contributions history to find it please) ? TheDJ (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 90.242.116.111 -mattbuck (Talk) 01:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing?
Should we also link to the original Wikipedia Noticeboard thread? I don't see a link in the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its listed as OR on the talk page here. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Libelous?
Is there any proof that the 1) the Virgin Killer album is the cause of all of this? Is there any proof beyond extremely heavy circumstantial evidence that Wikipedia is being blocked for indecent images?

Right now, there's a lot of speculation going on. Even though most of it will likely to be right on the money, it's still speculation and it should be removed from this article. Davidwr (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1): We have blocked this page because, according to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), it contains indecent images of children or pointers to them; you could be breaking UK law if you viewed the page.. 2) Wikipedia blocked for some; From Reddit. 3) All the listed ISP's in the article are on this list, and then some. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also not to mention: which happened in May. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And we talked to many who said that those images were blocked for them, some of whom worked on this article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Register
Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup just saw! Cool :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Typical Cade Metz editorialising at the end, he has a hardon of hate for all things WMF. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For The Register, that's a positively glowing testimonial. If that's what we get from them, the rest of the media should be pretty much on our side. --Tango (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Six UK ISPs Restrict Wikipedia Access Following Child Porn Blacklist - links to us, from ISP Review (there's such a thing?!). Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * On Slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/07/1253228 --Brian McNeil / talk 14:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But slashdot did not quote us :( DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Six UK ISPs Block Access To Wikipedia - DSL Reports Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Some?
"Scorpions album cover which some would call child pornography" Talk about weasel words. Who has called it child porn? I'm not aware of anyone calling it that. FWIW, anyone can walk into a record store and buy this image in the UK today: it's on the back of the deluxe boxed set. Seems like it's just a filtering cockup and not any genuine deceleration of "child porn" status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.150.202 (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been several attempts to delete the image from Wikipedia with the argument that it is child porn. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can find a random person on a forum to claim just about anything, hopefully Wikinews doesn't repeat every one of them. The implication in the article is that someone official thinks it's child porn, but the fact that I can just go buy a version of the album with the image says otherwise. Please provide a citation so that readers can judge the qualifications of the person making these claim for themselves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.150.202 (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't Wikipedia. I have, from people I trust, been directed to the page Demon redirects users to when accessing the WP article. It specifically states it is because of the IWF, and because of child pornography. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a Demon user who gets that link when trying to view the image description page (interestingly, Demon loads the article page, complete with image). I can confirm the link proves the IWF says it found child porn there. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Demon page doesn't say that, it's a generic message that lists the kinds of things that the IWF blocks. There are several copies of it on the Wikipedia admin notice board. Wikinews policy requires you to provide citations Brianmc, why do you not provide them? --71.163.150.202 18:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "We have blocked this page because, according to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), it contains indecent images of children or pointers to them; you could be breaking UK law if you viewed the page." That's what the Demon message tells me, a Demon customer, when I try to view the page. If inaccurate, then either Demon or the IWF is directly lying to us; I doubt that somewhat. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to know what IWF says, try BBC Radio 4 tomorrow. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Scorpions
It's Scorpions, not "The Scorpions". Please correct that. Someone might also wish to improve the poorly written sentence The Scorpions is the band behind "Rock You Like a Hurricane" and produced a number of controversial album covers. I'd go with something along the line of Scorpions are a German heavy metal band with a string of controversial album covers, best known for their 1984 hit Rock You Like A Hurricane. --60.48.73.249 10:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"The IWF did not notify WMF"
I believe it should be noted that they did not notify the WMF of the blocking as it is their policy not to notify sites. THe way it is currently worded makes it sound as though they normally notify sites, but did not in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.97.6 (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit requests

 * A serious side-effect of this is the inability of administrators on Wikimedia sites to block vandals and other troublemakers without potentially impacting hundreds of thousands of innocent contributors who are working on the sites in good faith.

I don't understand "without" here. Shouldn't it be "while"?
 * No, while would be a totally incorrect meaning. "without" as in they cannot do the good action without having the undesirable side effect. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The affected page does not display any message informing the user about blocked content on most ISPs, instead, a technical error message is shown. However, Demon redirects users to a block message on the IFW's site explaining that the page was blocked as the organization suspects child porn or links to it to be present.

This should be deleted as it was already mentioned earlier in the article, with more detail.

 * Earlier on December 6

should say: "Earlier on December 6, 2008"
 * This isn't Wikipedia, the year context is inherent in the date template. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The measures applied redirect traffic for a significant portion of the UK's Internet population...

awkward sentence, needs two-pass parsing before meaning can be elucidated. "Applied" could be verb or adjective.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelBoldt (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence makes perfect sense to me, you offer no alternative. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It too me two attempts to understand that sentence when I first read it, as well. "The applied measures" or "The measures that have been applied" would be better. --Tango (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The image
Because many British citizens may be wanting to access this page (if they can...anyway) wondering what is going on, I don't think it would be in good-faith to display the actual image that everyone is fussing about, for legal reasons. I personally think we should just display the "alternate" art saying that "this alternate cover depicting the band members was issued in many markets due to the controversial cover image".

Also, I still question us defining an album cover as a "logo" for the purposes of our fair use policy. It is an art piece, and fails the whitelist. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So Brits can't look, but the French can? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not censor. If Wikinews gets blocked, then that in itself is a story too. We just have to let readers and contributors tell us if that is the case. That will just be plain old news censorship and would be even bigger news. You said it yourself, it is a piece of art. But nonetheless, the album cover, a business promotional piece, pasted on thousands if not millions of CD's and or records, qualifies as a logo, not to mention the RCA at the corner. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * By my understanding of the law, there is no legal reason not to display the image. It isn't sexual, so doesn't count as "indecent". IWF saying otherwise doesn't make it so. --Tango (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Associated Press
We made the AP...sort of...see google news for Wikipedia, include all duplicates. What upsets me WN is not mentioned once. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would Wikinews be mentioned? We didn't really break the story, it was broken on the enwiki Admins Noticeboard, a publicly visible page. The media don't usually advertise their competitors without good reason, that we happen to have an article on the story too is not a good reason. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard on WP is not 'breaking the story'. We found out there, but 90% of the article is personal WN research, and doesn't even include anything from the noticeboard. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional information possibly to be used in the article
The Cleanfeed content blocking system being used in the UK checks the requested IP address first against a 'suspect list'; if the address appears on the list (which is now true for Wikipedia), the HTTP request is forwarded using WCCP v2 to a special transparent proxy server which inspects the full URL and blocks if the URL appears on its blacklist. See flowchart. If the URL isn't on the blacklist, the proxy passes the request through, but apparently without an XFF header, so that Wikipedia's servers think that all these requests come from the same small number of IPs. Wikipedia has blocked these IPs by now for vandalism, so anon users cannot edit through them. Signed-in users are not affected. Anon users cannot sign up for an account either since the max-account-per-IP limit has been reached, nor can they recover passwords for old accounts. There's a tool that can create accounts for these affected users. The UK Free Software Network is one of the ISPs that don't filter. AxelBoldt (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Generalised blocking?
"Wikinews has also learned that some ISPs have blocked customers from accessing some Wikimedia websites including the free, online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, altogether."

Could we please elaborate on this? I've not heard any confirmed reports of this other than this article... Shimgray (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the reddit post. A few users were blocked altogether. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which post? Putting on the "wikimedia technical hat" for the moment: Other than some performance problems with the censorship filters I, nor any of the other tech folks, have any reason to believe that people are being blocked from accessing Wikipedia entirely by any major ISP. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You linked to a whole page of comments, I couldn't find anything on there when I looked, so you are going to have to be more specific. And have you spoken to them personally to verify that it's not just a temporary technical problem? --Tango (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I've just read through that and I can't seem to find it - could you specify where it was? I'm not familiar with reddit, so I may be missing something in the threading structure... Shimgray (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a screenshot in there somewhere. Since I last saw it I cannot find it either now that th comments are long. But it was a 404 error wikipedia.org not available. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that screenshot all you are going on? Not a comment from someone that the whole site is blocked? That error message is the message some people get when viewing the one page that is blocked. The existence of that screenshot does not mean the whole site is blocked. --Tango (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on, is the reddit page all you have? Your edit summary says you actually talked to someone, who? --Tango (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See my talk page. I don't have to disclose who, as they didn't want their names in the article. So you either believe me or you don't. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're lying, I think you are just wrong. You haven't said what exactly you were told and have referenced a sceenshot that doesn't mean what you claim it means. I'm going to remove the comment from the article - don't put it back unless you are willing to give us enough information that we can trust you. Jumping to conclusions and putting something that is very implausible in an article is a very bad idea. --Tango (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I've been beaten to it. --Tango (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I saw the screenshot - . The thing is, the user was looking at Virgin_Killer, though - I would be careful about generalising from the vague wording of the message to "the entire site is blocked", at least without confirming from them that they get the message looking at something like Fluffy_bunnies... Shimgray (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sob!' you mean they blocked the fluffy bunnies too? How awful. :-P --Brian McNeil'' / talk 20:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IWF statement
There's a statement from the IWF here. I would add it in myself, but really need to get on with some real work. the wub "?!"  20:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say much, really. It just confirms what we already knew from the Demon error messages. I guess we should add that confirmation somewhere, but I don't see a need for more that a couple of words. --Tango (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian quoting WN
Well I am quite happy with The Guardian. They did a nice write up on Wikinews, and mentioned the factt that it was discussed and reported in May: Wikipedia page censored in the UK for 'child pornography' DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

3 Workarounds, plus Wikinews IP block workaround
There are 3 easy workarounds to view any Wikipedia page that is blocked. 1. login to Wikipedia using the secure server link (best method) 2. Google cache e.g. (older version) 3. Enable popups in Wikipedia and then hover over the link (only small preview available)

oh, the irony here... to create this message, my IP was blocked by wikinews (my first time here on wikinews). The system blocked a creation of an account from this IP, so....as workaround.. A) click on the secure server link, and create an account that way —Widefox (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm and what was your IP? We might be able to fix that...if you like. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * well of course, now it is on of the 6 proxies! We really must fight this change. :) —Widefox (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone else in the UK getting the same issue as Widefox? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Total blocking of Wikimedia sites at some ISPs
I occasionally answer technical questions on OTRS. I can confirm that at least one Internet service provider had all access to Wikimedia blocked, due to a configuration problem at their upstream provider, probably related to the filtering (apparently, some local filtering settings propagated to client networks using BGP). Submarine (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * When did that block occur? When was it lifted?  Is there likely to be a connection with the IWF action?  Can't you name the ISP or the IP address ranges involved? --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia press release
See Press releases/Censorship of WP in the UK Dec 2008 and Censorship of WP in the UK Dec 2008QA. Nanonic (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews en Français
There is an article on French withe title Wikipedia victime collatérale du filtrage d’Internet Wikipedia victime collatérale du filtrage d’Internet

This article is not on the Main Page but in Modifications récentes. It will be done des ajouts additions.

Will You please link to the English article? I can't do it my self.

Thank you!--Seraphita (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The link you added works. It is under Autres langues in the left bar. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The page has been deleted on the french Wikinews, as clearly not acceptable. So, no interwiki link to :fr required here. Zetud (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources for a follow up
In case anyone is interested in creating a follow-up article, there was an interview on BBC Radio 4 this morning, with (Wikimedia volunteer media contact) and an IWF spokesperson named Susan or Sarah Robertson.

 * Flash audio available only for a few days
 * text story using material from the interview

--InfantGorilla (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a follow up awaiting review. Gerard, although useful, is not a WMF official. See: Wikimedia, IWF respond to block of Wikipedia over child pornography allegations. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had not looked at the newsroom. Shame on the BBC not to pick up on the Mike Godwin quote and Foundation statement, but the audio piece was good nonetheless. Gerard is indeed 'useful' - he speaks as an en.Wikipedia editor, which Godwin cannot. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Images removed from Amazon
The image caption "... also appears on Amazon.com..." is no longer correct. Throwaway (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I disabled the edit protected link until we get consensus here.
 * The news was true at the time (according to the sources - I didn't check myself.) Following the normal Wikinews process, the article is now more than 24 hours old and should not be changed.  Recent developments should go in a new article.
 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki link
zh:維基百科一條目內容刊有女童裸照 遭英國網路供應商封殺 should be linked to this article. -- 202.40.137.201 06:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Access Restricted in Pakistan...
This is only partially related, but I don't know where else to go. I know due to the Mohammad cartoons, facebook has been blocked in Pakistan, but no local news organization has reported similar for wikipedia. Furthermore, only the english wikipedia doesn't work. And even then, the "blocking" itself is inconsistent with the method used by local ISPs.

this is what I get when I try to access Facebook:

http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo299/muddi900/fb1.png

And this is when I access the english wikipedia:

http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo299/muddi900/wiki.png

I am severely confused here!

BTW, I accessed this page through a proxy.

FAC
I'm nominating this for FA. I did the start, but this is really a cross-project muli-contributor effort. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

 * Paragraph 6, IFW should be IWF. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   22:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ C628 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


text:
Comments:British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations

Valid Concerns
Should a so-called "encyclopaedia" with a page like this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Naked_children

really be allowed full access to our children's minds? Our governments have the right- and DUTY- to track down sex offenders who threaten our youth- and remove them. If the government is too lax, we can take matters into our own hands. I think we have all heard plenty of stories about the deviancy that runs rampant amidst the so called "ADMINS"- whose ranks are openly acceptant of pederasts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Wikipedia_is_open_to_all

I praise the British government for being so forward thinking. Websites that attempt to insinuate deviant agendas into helpless minds are as much an enemy as terrorists. Treat them as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.40.27 (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, not that wheel war again. It was a fine example of nonsense that arose from multiple people disagreeing, all of which had valid points, but when combined resulted in a fight. Jimbo had to step in and all that, I think. Rickyrab (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, IWF. You and your shitty thinking. Incidentally, 24.61.40.27, you must have the brain of a 2-year-old if you seriously think that. Valid concerns my ass, USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. Oh screw it, I'll say it; you have none and you're a total idiot for thinking you do. 124.188.171.7 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Multiculturalism
Hessian -- metalhead, headbanger, metalfan -- culture is a subculture in a realm of multiple cultures (multiculturalism).

Part of our culture is enjoying the death of sacred cows, whether nudity of teen girls or holiness of God.

Basically, banning this picture is intolerance of our culture, and reveals a significant Judeo-Christian bias, even if secular. Prozak (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Who's culture, as the West was built on Christianity, else it would have stayed in the banding rebel, eras. It took the Vikings to convert to Christianity,and others to, to make Europe the biggest success in history. Also there is no such thing and a Jedeo Christian as they are both naturally opposed to each other. Jesus would be totally against Israel today. The third temple is prophesied to come from him when he returns, not Ashkenazis and real Jews building one in the mean time with (deceived) so called Christian monies. Personally I think the picture is Porn, even though it maybe linked to 70's culture. It's still inappropriate.  I also am against internet suppression. Wikipedia should take it down in good taste, or place into a sensible area.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.215.14 (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just mindlessly exercising power
The IWF just want to exercise their power. Wikipedia gets a lot of Google hits, so they target it. You don't see them focusing on real child porn sites, or the sites selling the album, such as Amazon and eBay, only on Wikipedia. Because they want to show that they have power. Dendodge (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's completely idiotic, nobody there seems to realise that it isn't intended as child porn, just only that it is on WP following the guidelines, to make the subject more recognisable etc. Stwalkerster (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against fighting child porn, but there is a difference between child porn and an academic discussion of child porn (and the controversy surrounding possible cases of it), which is what the article in question (and the picture) is about. So censoring this page is just lunacy. Gopher65talk 20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although it seems funny they go after such a (normally) non-issue image and not something a lot more obvious such as w:Image:Namibie Himba 0707a.jpg or w:Image:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg. TheFearow (userpage) 22:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally feel someone who doesn't truly understand what Wikipedia is about saw the picture and complained about it. I can wager that if they took the time to read the article(s) with the picture(s) in them, they would have understood why it's there rather than ruining everything for their neighbors by complaining and getting the whole Wiki on an embargo. -Jéské Couriano (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The other pictures you linked to are fine, because they're of naked boys.  The moral scolds behind this action couldn't care less about naked boys - it's topless girls they go crazy over.24.42.71.182 16:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder what they'd say if you sent a link to all the UK legislators/people in government pictures of the naked boys, since they'd be disobeying their own laws (it doesn't say anything about the gender of the children...) once it downloads the picture (even though they didn't know about it, their careers could be destroyed by a stupid law that doesn't take academic discussions into consideration...). I don't care to find their email addresses, or I might do that (unless it's against the law to force someone else into breaking the law... but this is all hypothetical, since I don't care to find their email addresses). Or you could save it to a different site, so they wouldn't have blocked it due to it being from Wikipedia...

I think it might be an accident. Although I could be applying Hanlon's razor too liberally. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An accident? You mean, accident that they're creating a firewall? If that - unlikely. IceUnshattered (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "firewall" existed for a long time before this. Someone just happens to have added a high profile edge case to it. the wub "?!"  23:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh...-frown- IceUnshattered (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By "accident I assume you mean they didn't expect to get this response from their actions. Censorship only works when you have subjugated the people or the people are unaware of the censorship taking place.  This is probably why you get redirected to a fake 404 page instead of a message saying the content you are trying to view is illegal and has been blocked.-Lotu (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This makes me feel very uncomfortable about living in the UK. Freedom from censorship is one of the most basic rights of a free society, and it looks like even that is a moving target now. Arresting MP's for telling the truth and now blocking Wikipedia (whether as an unintentional side-effect of another policy or not, it does not matter). This government needs to get the priorities straight, or we'll soon find ourselves living in the "United People's Republic of Britain". 62.30.249.131 00:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally do not think pornography in any form, much less child pornography, is a good thing. But this is simply an unbelievably outrageous action. I only hope that this causes enough waves to get them to stop being fucking morons. J.delanoy (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with J.delanoy, porn is bad (that sounds cliche). However, this is obviously not porn. It's a nude girl with her genitals covered, not a girl having sex. Plus, it's a fucking cover of a fucking CD. It's not porn. The IWF is a group of oblivious morons. DavidWS (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The pose is a pose which if it were in another context might be consider sexual if the individual were an adult. Indeed, a fully clothed adult in that posed might even come across as sexual. I don't think this is child porn but that decision isn't necessarily so clear cut. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the pose is sexual, all it cares about is female breasts and beavers. If it cared about the kids, it would also censor dicks, but it's not, it's about preventing criminals, who can easily get around it (ever heard of an encrypted proxy? You can't tell what is going through there, or even where it started). I don't like the idea of government firewalls, because those could very easily turn into censors (ever heard of the Great Firewall of China?). The UK government could easily use firewalls to illegally catch criminals, or change their laws to catch them legally, but I do not believe that it's bad enough of a crime to prevent everyone from downloading the pictures (I'm thinking about the people who are doing it for research, however twisted that research might be... their hypothesis might be that child porn is better than the alternative, who knows?). "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither." -someone famous. This censorship could easily escalate so you can't even see blood or violence 'to make sure the UK doesn't create any murderers' (which would probably create more murderers) It's a lot easier for them to adapt a law or make one that's similar than it is for them to make a law, so they are past their hardest step to escalate the censorship. (Self censored because I'd probably get flamed by those who don't deserve any respect and feel like being nice to those that might deserve respect).

No, they should not.
First I would say they should not do this. But if we have come to this (and it is just the thin end of the wedge) I do not want my ISP sending me fake "this page does not exist" pages, which is what it appears Virgin are currently doing, and that I consider very underhand and insulting. At the very least they should provide me with a message to tell me why they are not letting me see the page, and perhaps even supply a link I can use to get around it.

I'm accessing Wikipedia through PlusNet and it is going EXTREMELY slowly - presumably as a result of this! 212.159.3.234 00:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit various wikimedia projects using PlusNet and it's extremely slow! 212.159.3.234 00:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the simple answer, however, I am waiting on them to censor eBay and Amazon, maybe that will attract some real attention to the matter, and get some responses from them. This isn't right.Daedalus969 (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * That would bring a lot more public exposure especially because it would show how stupid what they are trying to do is. Because amazon and ebay have more complex pages than wikipedia, it would require more fine grained filtering to actually block this image.  Furthermore, many people access amazon and ebay through https which the ISP cannot intercept and block, unless they want to try a man in the middle attack.-Lotu (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * These jackasses can't filter the image out of a Wikipedia page without also nuking the text. Retards should be blown off the net and consigned to the ever-increasing pile of stupid ideas that people come up with, "for the children". --Brian McNeil / talk 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

the omnipresent nonce police
i wonder if they found the Nirvana Nevermind album yet. or the Phan Thị Kim Phúc article. 98.216.168.196 02:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they forgot the very definition of pornography. These are certainly artistic, and not then considerable as pornography. Oh well.

 * In the case of Phan Thi Kim Phuc, that was more of a historical document than art. That picture appeared in newspapers (and magazines) as an example of the horror of the Vietnam War. Also famous was the Vietnam prisoner being executed by a casual gunshot to the head. Both were very shocking, and may have helped to galvanize the antiwar movement. Rickyrab (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

At least it's out in the open
Since they can do this it's a good thing in my view that enough people get to see how it will affect them in the future and to get heard on whether they should do this sort of thing or not. Too many people assume that because they don't surf for porn it doesn't affect them. 81.178.81.118 10:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sign up to the ISP boycott
I've created a PledgeBank pledge "I will move to an ISP that does not censor my Internet access but only if 1,000 other people in the UK will do the same.": [sign here] 84.234.24.232 10:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than that, does anyone have a list of non-IWF ISPs? 81.178.81.118 12:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been looking for one for most of the morning -- it seems there are plenty of lists of those who do, but not a lot of information on those who don't. I especially like how my ISP is currently routing me through a transparent proxy as I write this, and thusly my static IP address (as a logged out user) is not displayed here. Time to move, I think. HawkeVIPER (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Demon doesn't block it for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.54.43 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Demon's blocking my access to the image page, producing a 403 and a description of IWF's idiocy. And I'm well pissed off about it, having listened to a thick, fat IWF fuck comprehensively fail to justify his right to decide what I can see.
 * Seems to me that this action, coming as it does at a time when Australians are also about to be subjected to unprecedented censorship, may be our last chance to resist before the UK Internet gets a PG certificate. --Cdavis999 (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Censorship sucks!
I just remembered this cartoon in which a penguin carries a banner saying censorship sucks!! I think nobody has the right to practice censorship on anything.--Mustafaahmedhussien (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No it is not appropriate for the ISPs to restrict access. This picture is no different to the photography that was on show at a gallery in the NE recently. To call it child porn is nonsense and to censor your customers because you think you know best is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.138.219.131 (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to post the album cover?
The photo on the album cover clearly violates the social norm. Wikipedia is showing poor taste in reproducing the photo.

Wikipedia can resolve the situation simply by taking the offending photo off of it site.

As for censorship issues, I think Wikipedia is just the wrong place for this type of content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweet (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article in question is about the controversy surrounding the release of the album due to its cover image. As long as the image remains legal (and it IS legal, since no one has been charged or prosecuted for buying or processing the album in question), then it deserves to remain on the page. Gopher65talk 13:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I would argue it's now essential to retain the image; it's notable in the context of the current censorship. I don't like the image, but I am glad of the opportunity to have made up my own mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.221.131 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, removing the image just hides the censorship more, which is not what Wikipedia should do (they won't censor for China, they shouldn't for the UK!).

NO NONO
Censorship is totally unacceptable in all its forms. The image is bad taste but it happened, its image that was printed and in history. Theres nothing overtly sexual about the image, its just nudity. Since when does nudity = porn automatically.

Child porn is bad but censorship is not the solution. People who are involved with child porn know what they are doing they go to great lengths to keep themselves hidden. Blocking an image which in my mind isnt even child porn does nothing but bring us one step closer to the police state. Who says what is wrong? Who decides what i can and cannot see?

I am outraged the my ISP would even consider filtering my internet, i feel like i'm in china or something. Wikipedia should not censor itself because of some misguided zeal. The internet is a place of free exchange of information. No one decides what i can and cannot see.

I can see the IWF was made with good intentions but censoring only leads down a road i wish i would never see. pedophiles need to be dealt with properly and images of abuse need to be removed but this is totally unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.221.3 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * That's your opinion, and you're welcome to express it, but it's not the way the law sees it. We have to abide by the law and we can't complain if ISPs act in accordance with the law. 212.159.3.234 17:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * We especially can't complain about that if we are in China, at least not safely. So what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.13.160 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't think the law actually requires ISPs to block child porn. This is a voluntary action on their part.-Lotu (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image of Virgin Killer
I am sorry but the image is offensive. —201.79.141.143 16:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that doesn't make it child porn. A lot of people find kissing men and most people find excrements offensive, yet you don't censor their pictures from an encyclopedia, do you?
 * I accept your apology, but I do not find the image offensive. There. All done. --89.167.221.131 21:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Neither do I. Seems to me that an image of a prepubescent girl should not have a sexual component or aspect in non-pathological individuals. It's just a picture of a pretty child, and no more intrinsically 'offensive' than a picture of a pretty kitten.
 * Perhaps the offence in in the eye of the beholder. The possible response of paedophiles has no more right to influence the rights of the rest of us to see such a thing that the possible response of foot-fetishists should dictate picture of shoes. --Cdavis999 (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Better block amazon.com, too! They sell this album and have the naughty images. Won't somebody please think of the children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.63.2 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They're thinking of doing that next ... > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/08/amazon-internet-censorship-iwf - 79.79.215.179 18:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazon have already removed the image from both the .co.uk and .com sites. I guess they don't feel they have anything to prove. Throwaway (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Offensive or not, porn or not, to me that's not the issue. I don't think Wikipedia should put someone (me) in the position of unintentionally downloading images that someone somewhere might construe as kiddie porn. I see an article about Britain banning something on Wikipedia, so I click on it. I certainly don't expect to end up with an image of a topless child - an image that could end up on my computer hidden away somewhere by Internet Explorer. I'm not only NOT viewing the image as pornographic, I'm clicking to get away as fast as I can, due to commercials declaring how those who download child pornography are going to jail.

So I think Wikipedia, Amazon, and or anyone else is totally irresponsible putting people in such a position. There should be warnings, so that those of us who choose to live within the boundaries of acceptable behavior have no need to worry.

Saraalan (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 * So let me get this straight: Whenever ANYONE in the
 * world interprets ANYTHING offensive into ANY picture,
 * Wikipedia should remove it? Contrary to your opinion,
 * I think that you should rather ask your governmental
 * representative on what the "boundaries of acceptable
 * behaviour" should be in our modern society as opposed
 * to the notion that "all child nudity is EVIL!!1!". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.195.76.2 (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop the Censorship Infrastructure
the rerouting of most UK traffic through 6 servers for organized censorship in the UK is the real scandal. Is this just a trial case for an infrastructure which is made for "exceptional circumstances" probably to be expected when the recession becomes a depression and people are back on the street? this must be stopped at the outset.

Definitely not
This is not only censorship, but stupid censorship at that.

And to all of you who think the image is offensive. Folks, please. Either it is child pornography according to the law (then the law has a big problem!) or it is not. Whether this image is offensive to *you* is completely irrelevant to the legal status.

An image of Tony Blair is offensive to me. Should I advocate censoring those?

-- tomás —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.214.209.191 (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is. Assuming there are only two questionable instances, they have obviously gone overboard. Assuming they didn't notify Wikimedia, they are unfriendly at the least. Regardless though, this is a problem that should be regulated at the personal computer side, and a dissemination of information of the consequences of viewing child pornography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.111.25 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's censorship
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5372397/ --Histo (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts
The image is clearly in bad taste. But that's no reason to delete it. As stated above, the image is used to demonstrate the controversy. It's not porn, because porn is meant to titillate; this image is meant to arouse intellectual discussion. -- Poe Joe (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't agree. I think it's designed to illustrate the title of the album with the only age remaining that's even plausibly a virgin (for the 1970s; now, it would have to be a nine year old). They wanted a picture of naked innocence and they got it. However, your point stands because it is not meant to titillate and I think the Nanny State shouldn't be censoring it -- no matter how much I hate wikipedia for your pathological persecution and exclusion of the net's oldest metal sites so your wannabe-blackmetal editors can post their own pointless bloviation. Prozak (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking child pornography is legal
Blocking child pornography is legal and should be done more often and not less. Wikipedia deserves the response by the ISPs for not removing the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.153.84 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * If you're ready for an arbitrarily appointed bunch like the IWF to decide for you what 'child pornography' is, and what you may or may not see, you should probably not have an opinion. --Cdavis999 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What the IWF have done is criminal. They are censoring the internet and it has to stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.79.12 (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No.
What the British ISPs are doing is pure nanny state fascism. I don't agree with child porn (it should stay illegal), but what they are blocking is NOT child porn.{ QUOTE:'''The image is clearly in bad taste. But that's no reason to delete it. As stated above, the image is used to demonstrate the controversy. It's not porn, because porn is meant to titillate; this image is meant to arouse intellectual discussion. -- Poe Joe (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)'''

3 Workarounds, plus Wikinews IP block workaround
There are 3 easy workarounds to view any Wikipedia page that is blocked. 1. login to Wikipedia using the secure server link (best method) 2. Google cache e.g. (older version) 3. Enable popups in Wikipedia and then hover over the link (only small preview available)

oh, the irony here... to create this message, my IP was blocked by wikinews (my first time here on wikinews). The system blocked a creation of an account from this IP, so....as workaround.. A) click on the secure server link, and create an account that way —Widefox (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm and what was your IP? We might be able to fix that...if you like. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * well of course, now it is on of the 6 proxies! We really must fight this change. :) —Widefox (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone else in the UK getting the same issue as Widefox? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also if you don't mind, what is your ISP? We are trying to determine if WN was filtered... DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be - I'm getting a transparent proxy public IP address when posting here anonymously (89.167.221.131). My Be connection has a static IP address (78.86.113.218). HawkeVIPER (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Virgin. My IP according to WN is 62.30.249.131 which is not my IP, so is a proxy, so yes they are filtering WN too. looks like WN has changed its block - account creation now possible from this IP —Widefox (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Another Hypocritical attack on new media.
This is a pattern we are seeing more and more. Basically anything on a computer is seen as fair game to the censorship brigade, it's held to different standards. They would never dare to try and ban a book featuring that image, or send the police to seize copies of the album from record stores, but the internet is seen as fair game. This is exactly the same double standards that sees violent blockbuster movies like Casino Royale universally praised (rightly) as artistic brilliance while video games get universally branded as degenerate and mindless. If the kind of people behind this censorship had their way, they would ban books and movies and have people dragged from the street for even talking about it. The only reason they don't is because they would never get away with it, people need to open their eyes and do something about these puritan freaks before it is too late.

This action is totally extra legal, the IWF is not an official body, they are vigilantes and should not be tolerated. If they had to get permission from the courts before doing something like this they would be bounced all the way to the moon by even the most sympathetic judge, and they know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.167.74 (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You can just use it to make money
The Scorpions could use it on a cover, the editor of the album could publish it worldwide, Google can display it with ads on the side, Amazon can sell the album showing the cover...

BUT wikipedia, wich is a free site, and a real public service cant.

Why?

Because censorship enables stupidity to rule the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.118.222 (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

its a 1976 album, the girl would be about 40 now!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.20.212 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Scorpions album cover
I'm a huge wiki fan, but was apalled that some of the community objected to the removal of this degrading image. It disturbs me that the image is considered appropriate in the first place. Even the band members themselves are embarassed about the image (replaced by an image of the band subsequently). Wikipedia get a grip
 * And we all know that that is NOT the point here. HawkeVIPER (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This has profound implications for Internet freedom
For a very measured analysis of the implications of this move for the wider notion of internet freedom see Welcome to Great (Firewall) Britain by Glyn Moody.

Child pornography is an abomination, but the case highlights just how vulnerable the Internet is to censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.139.210 (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Detecting Censorship
How many other sites are affected by this? This is the first I've heard of a site being blocked by the IWF, which isn't surprising considering that they are an unelected, unaccountable body with zero transparency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliax (talk • contribs) 13:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hadrian's Firewall
Hadrian's Firewall is the United Kingdoms equivalent of the Great Firewall of China.

http://hadriansfirewall.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.28.17.64 (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there legal redress, in the UK, for being blocked from accessing a web page? Does this breach the contract a user has with the ISP. The Internet Watch Foundation's legal status needs to be challenged. If this is what the IWF are 'censoring' then Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy and Nirvana's Nevermind almbum covers will also be censored. I hope that Wikipedia challenges this immediately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.250.196 (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The prospect of the web being policed by the british tabloids kneekerk morality is frightening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.33.242 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nudity = Porn? What a joke!
I suppose if my naked 6-year old daughter appears in a family video, that would make it a porn movie? And I'm being a pervert when I'm changing my younger daughter's diapers? If this absurd view of nudity or children is "normal" then I guess I'm a complete freak because I'm certainly not getting a boner when looking at my family videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.24.232 (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

- I cant see what all the fuss is about either. The picture is part of a a long tradition of nude representations of children that are about innocence, not titillation - going back to Rubens cherubs and medieval representation if you like. Its time to start to challenge this neopuritanism - we cant allow these bigots to take power. 86.138.141.74 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable
Absolutely unacceptable. First of all, the album cover can be found on thousands of web sites across the internet which are not blocked. Furthermore, it is debatable whether or not the image goes too far. Personally I think it's on the edge, but not over it. In addition to that, it is the image that is in question, not the article itself. So why should that be blocked. And last but not least, if they absolutely must censor this kind of stuff using proxies, then at least implement them correctly. There's no reason why such proxies couldn't add a simple header to their requests. ColinHelvensteijn (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can report their blacklist as obscene content hosted in the UK? I find censorship to be repugnant and offensive to my moral principals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.110.193.88 (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

midage is here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.203.27 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

V for Vendetta
It's happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.183.53 (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thus spake Anonymous. 204.52.215.107 08:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Is not this more about blocking Wikipedia?
Since the pictures are found on very big commercial sites it appears that this is more about blocking Wikipedia. I suggest that commercial sites should be blocked first if anything should be blocked. Otherwise it will look like if those who really want to distribute child porn puts up something commercial then it is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.151.87 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The IWF is considering going after Amazon next, as pointed above. According to them, the main complaint was about Wikipedia, not Amazon or Google or any other sites. -Jéské Couriano (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazon have already removed the image. Throwaway (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this censorship is disgusting. The excuse was that is was a "potentially illegal" image. Surely a civilised society can't go around playing police until something has been proved illegal. And clearly the album cover is not a picture depicting child abuse. It's simply a naked body. And furthermore any body parts that some may find offensive are covered up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.80.219 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If we want our Internet content filtered then we'll sign up for a service that will do that for us. We are not children that need nannying. We do not been thought police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.240.227 (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion Virgin Killer Original Artwork
For Art's Sake... As Usual, People with Hate in there heart's, Point Fingers and try to make ordinary People bend to there Doctrines. I guess there a part of the PMRC (Ex members). Is It Pornographic, did the girl suffer, or suffered since? No.. The Lady In question Is German, which posibly means Less Prudish.

Next They will want to take you to court, because You put a Picture of Your Child in the Swimming Pool.

Also if there that bothered about Child Pornography & paedophiles. Make the Registers Public. There Should be No annominetee for Such SICK individuals

We Also Want An International Register.

Bob Bankier

Recall, the hermes birkin handbagreally should work with your current sizing, definitely not versus the item. Should you be petite, opt for 25cm or 30cm Birkin. If you are full-figured or maybe extra tall, 35cm and also hermes birkin 25cm 30cm would probably glimpse most effective. Haut The Courries which happens to be marginally older using shorter shoulder straps is usually called Birkin and extremely good for journeying apply.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User:J.delanoy

Hi. I'm User:J.delanoy.

title: User:J.delanoy


text:
User talk:Stifle

Welcome
Thanks for your recent help copyediting Clumsy UK censoring attempt causes problems for editors across wikipedia. I hope you'll stay with Wikinews and help us to grow our (currently small;)) group of active editors. Gopher65talk 20:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Stifle


text:
Comments:Gunman opens fire inside store in California, USA

People have right to know
Who ended up with the toy in question? PerryO206.24.48.1 21:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Geni

Welcome
Thanks for your recent edits to Clumsy UK censoring attempt causes problems for editors across wikipedia. Remember to always attempt to build consensus before engaging in controversial moves, rather than acting unilaterally. The article talk page is our friend:). Also, due to a Wikimedia bug (of low priority apparently:P), the "Comments" page of an article is not automatically moved along with the article and talk pages, so you have to move the comments page separately. It's a pain, and hopefully that will eventually be fixed. I hope you continue to edit Wikinews:). Gopher65talk 21:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Geni


text:
Comments:Southern California hit by 5.1 earthquake

There was an earthquake?
I didn't even feel it. -- Poe Joe (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:The ed17

Thanks for editing on Wikinews! Our community of regular contributors is quite small, so any and all help that you can provide to the project is appreciated:). Please browse through the links above (at your discretion of course) for a general overview of Wikinews policies. Thanks again! Gopher65talk 22:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Gopher! I won't be writing any full articles here (Wikipedia takes my time) but I will definitely make the small edits that are needed when I am here! Thanks for the welcome, too. :) The ed17 (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for making all the grammatical fixes and improvements to articles. Wikinews needs more editors like you. Anonymous101talk 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ship scrapping
Thanks for catching that error in the HMS Invincible article. I should have caught that while reviewing before it was published. Gopher65talk 13:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:The ed17


text:
User talk:Woody

Welcome
Thanks for editing on Wikinews. Any help that you can provide to our small project is greatly appreciated. Gopher65talk 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
Thanks for fixing all those redirects on the UK ISPs erect 'Great Firewall of Britain' to censor Wikipedia. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Slightly rephrased your comment as it sounded quite dodgy! ;) Regards, Woody (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So did I :( We will have to wait til its close to publish. But thanks though. I imagine we can delete a lot of the REdirs once we get to that stage. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Woody


text:
User talk:Cameron Scott

Welcome
Thanks for your help today on the article UK ISPs censor Wikipedia. New editors are in great need on Wikinews. Gopher65talk 22:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cameron Scott


text:
Talk:Honda quits Formula One racing

Sigh, I was at the Brackley headquarters only on Wednesday. We saw Ross Brawn too. Guess I really should have got some pictures! the wub "?!"  23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Hey, you're a lucky guy ;-) --Yuriybrisk (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Honda quits Formula One racing


text:
Talk:Brazil blames human error for 2006 midair airliner collision

Air Force repudiates newspaper accounts of accident report
*

06/12/2008 - 13h40

Note: Final Report Flight 1907

In relation to the material published in the press about the FINAL REPORT ON THE FLIGHT 1907 ACCIDENT, the Air Force Center for Social Communication (CECOMSAER) clarified that this document will be presented to the victims' relatives on December 10, 2008, at 13:00, at the Center for the Investigation and Prevention of Aeronautic Accidents, in Brasilia, according to an invitation issued on Friday, yesterday, 5/12. Only after fulfilling this commitment to first inform the relatives, will the content be presented to the press in general.

Additionally, this Center confirms that CENIPA held a meeting with victims' relatives, on August 9, 2008. At that meeting, the relatives saw segments of the reconstruction of the accident, based on the voice and data records of the black boxes of the aircraft involved in the accident. They also received information about the work done up to that point by the Commission, however they were informed that the conclusions will be presented in the final document.

The principal points presented in the meeting with the families, already supplied to the press, were the following:

1) No errors were found in the design or integration of the communications, transponder and TCAS (anti-collision) equipment of aircraft N600XL (the Legacy);

2) Between January 29 and 31, the two American pilots were heard, in individual interviews, at the headquarters of the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board), in Washington, in the United States. The pilots heard two hours of audio recorded by the black-box (CVR) of aircraft N600XL and answered a long questionnaire elaborated by the Commission of Investigation about the accident;

3) The pilots said that they did not undertake any intentional act to interrupt the functioning of the transponder and, consequently, of the aircraft's anti-collision system, as well as not having noticed or remembered having done anything that could have caused the accidental interruption of the functioning of that equipment;

4) Some rules and procedures were not correctly followed in the occurrence, which led the Commission to analyze the reasons for this having happened, with the objective of elaborating flight safety recommendations. These considerations will be made in the final report;

5) In the accident no indication was found of influence of radar coverage, through inefficiency or deficiency in air traffic control communications and surveillance equipment;

6) Additional information on the technical investigation will be supplied at the end of the work, with the conclusion of the final report.

Air Brigadier Antonio Carlos Moretti Bermudez

Head of the AIR FORCE CENTER FOR SOCIAL COMMUNICATION

Source: CECOMSAER

201.6.29.115 01:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


text: User:JGXenite

title: User:JGXenite


text:
User talk:Narson

Welcome
--Brian McNeil / talk 23:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Creating articles in your userspace
Next time you want to do this, create an article with a name like "User:Narson/Your_article_title_here". That way it doesn't screw up your userpage when you move it into the main article namespace for review and publication. Gopher65talk 01:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Good article
I forgot the barnstar i ll give it to you later :D Danger^Mouse (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Narson


text: File:Virgin Killer.jpg

title: File:Virgin Killer.jpg


text:
Talk:Thousands protest PM Harper in Toronto

This text was written by Judy Rebick, expressly sent to myself for the purpose of Wikinews. This article contains original reporting based on first-hand accounts of the event. Cary Bass (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


text:
Launch of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory rover delayed until 2011

December 7, 2008 NASA announced a delay to its next planned mission to Mars at a news conference on Thursday, 4th of December. The Mars Science Laboratory was due to launch in 2009, but lift off will now not occur until 2011 because more time was required for tests, causing the rover to miss its launch window. This delay comes just 2 months after the European Space Agency (ESA) delayed their planned ExoMars mission until 2016. Commenting on the delay of the MSL, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said, "[t]rying for '09 would require us to assume too much risk, more than I think is appropriate for a flagship mission".

The MSL was due to feature several new technologies, including a hovering platform that would lower the rover onto the surface, and new atmospheric entry methods. Atmospheric entry into Mars has always been a difficult prospect for scientific probes with many probes being lost. The most recent loss was in 2003: the British Beagle 2 probe, which was due to land on a series of inflated balloons, but was never heard from after entering the atmosphere. It is the additional testing time required by changes to these technologies that has caused it to miss the October 2009 launch window. Due to the orbits of Mars and Earth, interplanetary travel between them is only feasible every two years for a window of a few weeks.

The delays and additional fabrication and testing have inflated the budget of the project by an additional 400 million US dollars, bringing the total to $2.4 billion. These increasing costs of Mars missions are what forced the decision by the ESA to delay its ExoMars mission, and they have now prompted talk of increased co-operation on future missions. The respective chief scientists at NASA and the ESA, Dr Ed Weiler and David Southwood, have already engaged in preliminary talks about such co-operation, and there is now talk of NASA joining the ESA on its ExoMars mission. Dr Weiler, speaking on such a possibility, said "It is going to take some real scientists and engineers getting together and working that out. But is there a possibility it could become a joint mission? Absolutely. And we're certainly open to it and would welcome it."


text: Category:Wikiversity custodians

title: Category:Wikiversity custodians


text:
Wikinews Shorts: December 7, 2008

'Progress' seen in US auto bailout deal
Officials say that progress is being made in a deal to bail out three United States carmakers. The U.S. government will be holding weekend talks on the plan after two days of Congressional hearings.

Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, stated that discussions with both parties had been "constructive".

Executives from the three companies - General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler - have pleaded before two Congressional committees, asking for $34 billion in order to stop collapse.

"I'm convinced that by Sunday we will have an agreement that people can understand on this bill," said Barney Frank, a representative from the state of Massachusetts.

Sources

Ghana to hold elections
The people of Ghana, a country often shown of as an example of a good democracy in Africa, will vote for a new president and parliament.

The current president, John Kufuor, will resign after serving the maximum of two terms in office. The elections are expected to be close.

The three main contenders for the presidency are: the Nana Akufo Addo from New Patriotic Party, who was the foreign minister under the current president, John Atta Mills running for the National Democratic Congress, and the Convention People's Party's candidate, one Paa Kwesi Nduom.

Sources

Archbishop of York says Mugabe must be overthrown

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, said that Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe must be forced out of office and face trial for his crimes against humanity.

"The time has come for Robert Mugabe to answer for his crimes against humanity, against his countrymen and women and for justice to be done. The winds of change that once brought hope to Zimbabwe and its neighbours have become a hurricane of destruction, with the outbreak of cholera, destitution, starvation and systemic abuse of power by the state," said Sentamu.

Sentamu that the power-sharing deal that was signed by Mugabe and the Zimbabwean opposition in September was "now dead".

Dr Sentamu's statement comes after a severe cholera outbreak spread in Zimbabwe, and saw 12,545 cases reported and 565 people dead.

Sources

Scandal-ridden Congressman loses delayed election
Republicans experienced another victory late Saturday, as the Associated Press called the race in Louisiana's 2nd district at 22:35 CST in favor of Anh "Joseph" Cao, heralding the first Vietnamese-American member of Congress and sending the incumbent scandal-ridden Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson home after nine terms.

Sources

title: Wikinews Shorts: December 7, 2008


text:
User:Narson

d

title: User:Narson


text: Talk:Launch of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory rover delayed until 2011


text:
Comments:Killing of a 15 year old student in Greece

A police car patroling in Exarchia, central Athens, passing through Mesologgiou cobbled street (considered an anarchist/anti-authoritarian place with music, bars etc and lots of youth in the streets, so we can easily assume the police car was sent there to provoke and harass the youth), was confronted by a few young people, shouting to the policemen to get lost. There are a few reports that an empty bottle or a brick was thrown to the police car.The police went out of the car provoking the youth and one of the police shot against one 15-16 year old boy, right on the heart, murdering him in cold blood. The name of the boy that stood up to the cops is Alexandros Grigoropoulos. Anarchists and residents gathered, but riot police forces circled the area. The unrest began in Athens soon after the shooting in Exarchia district, a regular scene of clashes between police and leftist groups.

Riots then spread to Thessaloniki, Greece's second biggest city, to the northern cities of Komotini and Ioannina, and to Crete.

The two officers have been suspended, and an inquiry is under way.

In Athens police fired tear gas at hundreds of stone-throwing youths, who went on a rampage as news of the shooting spread.

After a lull of a couple of hours, rioting resumed shortly after midnight local time (2200 GMT), with some protesters marching through Athens city centre and others fighting police outside the National Technical University of Athens, the Associated Press news agency reported.

In Thessaloniki dozens of youths attacked a police precinct, while others blocked a road near the university campus.--94.196.63.75

greek riots
The murder of the 15 years old boy is just a motive of the massive greek riots in all the big cities in Greece. Athens, Thessaloniki, Heraklion, Komotini, Patra, Ioannina are burning. The real cause of this massive and strong riot is the dispute of the political ruling system.

In the middle of the economical crisis, that causes direct and serious problems in our lives, pauvrety, unemployment, rise of the rising costs of the basic products, reduces of people rights and freedom of speech e.t.c,are the bases of this riot that it will not stop this weekend. Leftist, simple citizens, anarchists, are united in this battle to send the message of the overthrow of this failed and bloody policy of developped countries and its goverments.

extreme Leftist organizations anarchists, and independent individuals must start to send petitions in the major media so that the peolple have a global knowledge of the facts of this weekend.

a greek LEFTIST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.45.171 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:62.24.251.240

December 2008
Hello. Edit summaries such as this are inappropriate. Please do not do it again. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tuff, I will do it again if I want 62.24.251.240 19:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:62.24.251.240


text:
User talk:Message From Xenu

Welcome
Cirt (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Message From Xenu


text:
User talk:Conti

Welcome
Cirt (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Conti


text:
User talk:Lucasbfr

Welcome
Cirt (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lucasbfr


text: Template:Whois

title: Template:Whois


text:
User talk:Stwalkerster

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank You for posting your comments on articles. Did you know that you can also write articles for Wikinews? If you choose to help Wikinews by writing articles the links below might be helpful:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and Comment pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Stwalkerster


text:
User talk:Jéské Couriano

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank You for posting your comments on articles. Did you know that you can also write articles for Wikinews? If you choose to help Wikinews by writing articles the links below might be helpful:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and Comment pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Jéské Couriano


text:
User talk:Daedalus969

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank You for posting your comments on articles. Did you know that you can also write articles for Wikinews? If you choose to help Wikinews by writing articles the links below might be helpful:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and Comment pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Daedalus969


text:
User talk:TheDJ

Welcome
Cirt (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dutch-languages sources
Hello again, TheDJ. I wonder whether you can help someone out about Dutch-languages sources at User talk:Nuams. I was pinged about it, but I don't know Dutch. Therefore, maybe you can help out, or do you know someone else who understands Dutch? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:TheDJ


text:
User talk:Scott MacDonald

Welcome
Cirt (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Scott MacDonald


text:
User talk:JGXenite

Welcome
Cirt (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:JGXenite


text:
User talk:Fidelity axiom

Welcome
DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fidelity axiom


text:
User talk:Seth Finkelstein

Welcome
DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Seth Finkelstein


text:
User talk:Arbiteroftruth

Welcome
DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arbiteroftruth


text:
Boxing: Pacquiao stuns De La Hoya with eighth round TKO

December 7, 2008 Filipino WBC Lightweight Champion, Emmanuel "The Pacman" Pacquiao (48-3-2, 36 KOs) stopped American boxer and promoter Oscar "Golden Boy" De La Hoya (39-6, 30 KOs) after eight rounds of the "The Dream Match" in MGM Grand Garden Arena, at Las Vegas, Nevada on December 6, 2008. De La Hoya's corner threw in the towel before the start of the 9th round of the 12-round, non-title fight at the 147-pound welterweight limit. It was officially a technical knockout.

"Pacman" dominated the fight, from the opening bell, landing his straight left hand to the American's face, and later opens up with combinations in the seventh and eighth rounds. Two of the three judges scored all eight rounds for him, while a third gives De La Hoya the first round. Finally, Pacman gives De La Hoya a beating and closes his left eye in the eighth round. Pacquiao said, "You're still my idol." De La Hoya replied, "No, you're my idol."

The camp of Manny Pacquiao has previously claimed that "Golden Boy" had weaknesses the Filipino boxer would exploit. Trainer Freddie Roach accurately foretold the outcome when he earlier said, "I'm not saying we're not going to knock him out. If it happens, fine. We'll take it. What we're going to do is break him down round by round. We're working on staying away from the jab and the left hook. The hook is a power shot. But Oscar makes a mistake with his jab. I'm not saying what it is, but I've seen it."

Meanwhile, sportinglife.com reported that Pacquiao "confirmed he's up for a showdown with Ricky "Hitman" Hatton, telling Sky Box Office: "My job is to fight in the ring, that's the promoter's job. I can fight any time, anywhere. I can go to England to fight Hatton, no problem." Hatton replies: "Manny's proved again that he's pound-for-pound the number one in the sport and I still might get my dream of becoming the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world."

Pacquiao stands to earn nearly US$15 million, which also includes his share of the pay-per-view earnings while De La Hoya is guaranteed $20 million for the fight.


text:
Talk:Boxing: Pacquiao stuns De La Hoya with eighth round TKO

I created this article, minutes, or rather an hour, after the world, with bated breath awaited and witnessed this once in a lifetime meeting with boxing history. Immortality: yes. A hero? Both of them. I hope this be published forthwith in view of the landmark character of this news article. Please help in reviewing this. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)