Talk:Tor (anonymity network)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

partial impartiality[edit]

"An extract of a Top Secret appraisal by the National Security Agency (NSA) characterized Tor as "the King of high secure, low latency Internet anonymity" with "no contenders for the throne in waiting"."

"As of 2012, 80% of The Tor Project's $2M annual budget came from the United States government,"

hahaha. oh dear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2014

Article name discussions[edit]

Requested move 10 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No prejudice against a new discussion with a different proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Tor (anonymity network)Tor (network) – A shorter name, easier to remember Deku-shrub (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Support - sufficient disambiguation sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Anonymity is Tor's raison d'être. Network qua network is needlessly unhelpful and generic. kencf0618 (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article_titles#Precision "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that" Deku-shrub (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes but it doesn't define the topic unless you already know that 'network' here means 'computer network', not a postal network in a place called Tor, or some political clique centred on a Mr. Tor … … or etc., nor incidentally does the present name IMO. Pincrete (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - per Kencf0618, though I can see present title is clunky. 'Network' isn't helpful as it has many non-IT meanings. It also isn't accurate, since (in IT) the term normally applies to the hardware rather the software, though present title is equally wrong in that sense. Suggest you find a better title, 'Tor (software)'? Pincrete (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 September 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The proposed disambiguation is not considered an adequate description of the bulk of the content. No prejudice against future discussion as most participants did seem keen on some sort of move. Jenks24 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Tor (anonymity network)Tor (software) – Simpler to remember name, more accurately describe the software that simply forms the basis of the implemented network Deku-shrub (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support This seems more orthodox. Other opinions? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Consider the difference between our articles World Wide Web and WorldWideWeb. The first is the network, the second is the software. In 1990 the two could have been considered synonymous, because there was only one software program that could access the World Wide Web network, but then came netscape navigator, internet explorer, firefox, etc. and now my imaginary 1990 Wikipedia would need another page; Web browser. In my opinion, this article should be about the network, with a section that mentions the only software that currently accesses that network. If and when more programs are written to access the Tor network, we can give each a page or possibly create Tor (software) (currently a redirect) for the lot of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not looking to split this, I just want something I can better memorise every time I write a wikified link to this article Deku-shrub (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would have supported (network) if I had seen the thread in time, I think, but while the software is important, the primary subject is the network. If it were simply a way to anonymize Internet traffic, the software argument would be more straightforward, but it's also an overlay network. A huge portion of sources about this subject are about content, not software. I suppose you could make a reductionist argument that any network is just the collection of software on individual machines, but if we're going by what sources talk about when they talk about Tor, it doesn't make sense to shift its name from network to software. The existence of services like Tor2Web further complicate it by enabling the end user to "access/browse/other verb Tor" without ever downloading the software. There's a strict argument that could say they're not actually using Tor or that they're using Tor software on someone else's computer, but I don't think there's anything to be gained from framing the subject that way via the title. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Bitcoin has both Bitcoin (implicitly software) as well as Bitcoin network. I just want a easy to remember name :( Deku-shrub (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Guy and Rhododendrites now - probably "software" is not the focus but the network is. The article could be just "Tor" also. By the traffic, I think this article gets more than twice the pageviews of everything else at the Tor disambiguation page put together. That makes a case for this to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 5 November 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

– "Tor" is currently a disambiguation page. Because there are other move requests suggesting that a move would be desirable, and because this article gets lots of traffic and the other articles for "tor" do not, this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and so should occupy the title "Tor". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Traffic:

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 December 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved both. The previous move discussion was only a month ago, but it did not address long-term historical significance. Consensus can change, and the consensus of this wider set of editors is clear that when long-term historical significance is considered, the anonymity network is not the primary topic. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

– Request move is only admin, Itwiki6666 (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Although the nom has not outlined a move rationale, the fact that this term refers to things as basic as a rock formation and a genus of fish leads me to believe that there is no primary topic by historical importance. bd2412 T 13:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This has been discussed before. Incendiary Iconoclasm 15:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment @Itwiki6666 and BD2412: Can you two please give your response to Talk:Tor#Requested_move_5_November_2015, where the current names were confirmed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I was not aware of the previous discussion, but it does not seem to have taken long-term historical significance into account at all. bd2412 T 16:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
BD2412 This is Wikipedia so no previous discussion is binding when new information is available. What historical significance is there to consider? I am ignorant of this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The use of the word "tor" to refer to a particular kind of rock formation goes back hundreds of years. See, e.g., William Borlase, Observations on the Antiquities, Historical and Monumental, of the County of Cornwall (1754), p. 226: "Round Arthur's Bed, on a rocky Tor in the Parish of North-hill, there are many, which the country people call Arthur's Troughs in which he us'd to feed his Dogs". Software, no matter how popular, tends to be comparatively transitory. Geological tors will still be there, and will still be called that, for hundreds of years after the software is gone. bd2412 T 16:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: It doesn't matter. People who google "Tor" are most likely not looking for a rock, of whatever that is. Anyway, in the move discussion above this one, the consensus was clear and "Tor (anonymity network)" was moved to "Tor", and it would be an ignorant decision if we revert that. Incendiary Iconoclasm 17:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
--Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support - please reverse an ill-thought through move. This software product isn't Apple and even Apple doesn't displace the basic meaning. If the primary topic isn't a Tor, then it should be a dab page, not this. I appreciate that software seeking users may outnumber the other 20 subjects on the dab, but that isn't the only consideration. The only incovenience here is an iPhone user seeing Tor (anonymity network) on the drop down choices next to the onion icon. Is (anonymity network) going to help or hinder the person looking for the software, obviously not. But is being sent direct to a very large article on an anonymity network going to hinder anyone looking for any of the 20 other subjects - yes it is. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the previous move request made a very good case. The page statistics overwhelmingly show that this is the most sought after topic. Jolly Ω Janner 20:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    No argument with the page statistics, but we don't get to cherry pick only one bit of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to make a decision. The whole guideline must be considered, and the previous discussion did an overwhelmingly poor job of that. ~Amatulić (talk)
    The guideline states "In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant.", which is why the page view statistics were reason enough for me to oppose. I did not take the policy as meaning primary articles need to satisfy both criteria. However, if TOR is shown to be lacking in long-term significance, I may be inclined to support the move. At the moment, I'll admit I haven't done as much research into this as I would like i.e. looking at the number of mentions in journals and books. It was based more on my opinion that if TOR was to shut down today, we would still look at it as primary topic in years to come (perhaps not decades or centuries, though). If anyone has some information on mentions in books and journals, it would be a great help in this discussion. And yes, the previous move discussion was pretty abysmal... Jolly Ω Janner 00:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Having Tor as the software product is pure recentism. The software meaning is transitory. It is worth noting that 123 does not lead to the once dominant spreadsheet software; Word does not lead directly to the currently dominant word-processing software, Excel leads to a disambiguation page, not the currently dominant spreadsheet program; Access also leads to a disambiguation page and not the database package... Guess what Office leads to? Why should the Tor software product be an unexpected exception?-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Those examples are all to software that shares a name with very commonly-used homonyms. That is not the case here; the software is much more likely to be linked than the rock formation. VQuakr (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a very good point, VQuakr and I think apple would also be an example of a commonly-used homonym. It has also been used as an example in this discussion. Jolly Ω Janner 21:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support – There are too many meanings for "Tor". This software is only a minor instance of the name, and only seems to be put here due to the tech bias from Wikipedians. +mt 21:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    That is demonstrably false. As noted above, the visits to the software topic outnumber all others by about 20:1. VQuakr (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    Software-based topics will inherently be biased on the Internet, but it does not reflect folks' general knowledge offline. "Tor" has existed since Middle English essentially as a geomorphology term, lets say >500 years of use. +mt 00:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia exists on the internet. I find the "it's an old term" argument spectacularly unconvincing - obviously this would be true for every software product that shares its name with an existing word. VQuakr (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an interesting situation where both the rock formation and the software meet the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline, which is the only thing that should matter in this discussion. The guideline offers two ways to determine a primary topic: (a) primary with respect to usage, the most sought topic over all others combined; and (b) primary with respect to long-term significance, enduring notability and educational value. Each of these two definitions apply here. They are mutually exclusive and equally valid, therefore the concept of a "primary topic" for the term "tor" is inconclusive. In such a situation, the topic term should be a disambiguation page. I'll also add that guidelines are not policies, regulations, or requirements, they are best practices, and best practices should be adapted as needed to different situations. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Amatulic. DanHobley (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. Per the page traffic results above, our readers overwhelmingly (~95%) are going to be looking for this page - convenience to our readership is the underlying reason for WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. The geological usage of the term is certainly older, but it was never a particularly common term - to the extent that is is difficult to say which will be the more likely search term in the very long run. I am willing to live with the risk that this discussion might need to be revisited in 20 years. Since the current name appears to satisfy both the letter and spirit of the disambiguation guideline, I would say the unanimous move discussion last month got it right even if they did not formalize their reasoning adequately. VQuakr (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the overwhelming current traffic, that's only one criterion in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. Taking the guideline as a whole, the primary topic is ambiguous, and in that case it is more appropriate for the subject name to be a disambiguation page. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Amatulic: my reasoning addressed the entire guideline. You just only acknowledged a portion of it in your reply. VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Amatulic already noted that part of WP:Primarytopic in his !vote. I'll repeat it here since you have requested it:
"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."
--Wikimedes (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I think for me the problem is trying to assess the guideline as a whole when it states "In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant.". To me this suggests it is fine to only use one criterion in some cases. Whether it is appropriate to do so for this article? Well, that's where I think the debate really lies and I haven't seen anything in the guideline which advises how to go about that, so I think we will have to work on consensus. Jolly Ω Janner 20:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per In ictu oculi and Amatulic...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the most popular topic, also see my aborted attempts to rename this previously... Deku-shrub (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with Amatulic that the primary topic is not clear. Mikenorton (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This appears to be a textbook case of the primary topic being clear. The guideline says
"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.".
I am a bit suspicious when I see editors ignoring clear wording like this in favor of using a vague, subjective "taking the guideline as a whole" standard to support something that is not found anywhere in the guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Why be suspicious when you can verify it yourself. See that other criterion adjacent to the one you quoted, saying that a topic is primary with respect to long-term significance, enduring notability and educational value? I'm also not convinced that "only one sense of primacy is relevant" with respect to this article. The Tor network happens to be generating the most traffic now, but that was not the case fairly recently, and will not be the case in the future. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me. I'm not privy to the this-has-been-discussed-before discussions though... IMO the primary topic for "Tor" is the geographic/geoglogic formation. If we must have a page "Tor" that isn't disambiguation, I would suggest Tor (rock formation) be moved to Tor. I mean, yo, take a look at this Ngram comparing "Tor" and "tor" and "TOR". Tor, the network, would essentially never show as "tor". Tor, the rock formation, would essentially never show as "Tor" because you would very rarely start a sentence with that word in singular. There are other uses of "Tor" though, such as in "Sir Tor" and "Tor Line"; how much noise that contributes I don't know. We'll be generous and allow that all instances of "TOR" refer to "Tor", the network; it doesn't make much difference.
The interesting thing to me here is that use of "Tor" remains steady from when I started (1920) to the present; the advent of the Tor network makes no discernible difference. Tor, the network, seems to have attracted little if any interest in the world of published books. Huh. Any road, and the main point, "tor" beats "Tor" hands down whatever year you pick. Makes sense to me.
Anyway, there's gonna be tors long after Tor (and maybe humanity) is forgotten. So let's keep perspective here. I know a lot of people are computer savvy and all that, and maybe naval-gazing is coming into play here a little. A tor is a rock formation, mainly. Herostratus (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The users of Wikipedia do not agree.
--Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments and questions
  • The anonymity network article appears to have been the most viewed by far in January 2010 as well stats from January 2010: 2577times 0times 10873 times per Toddy1's correction below. 36times 0times 6606 times
(0times for the rock formation and mTOR makes me suspicious, but the move logs come up empty, so they don't appear to have been called something else back then.)
  • Google Scholar results might be relevant as well [1], but I'm having trouble making sense of them. Most hits in the first couple of pages seem to be relating to mTOR or psychiatric studies, which for all I know could be false positives.
  • How would words containing tor (editor, raptor, monitor) affect different search results? Not at all for Wikipedia traffic, but for the other searches mentioned?
--Wikimedes (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't know about the others, but Google Ngrams search for phrases, which for one-word phrases devolves to stand-alone words. --Herostratus (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Tor was moved to Tor (rock formation) in September 2012, which explains the zero in the stats above...Jokulhlaup (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
stats for page views in January 2010 for the article now named Tor (rock formation) 10873 times.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Diff for the move-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've corrected the mTOR stat as well, which had also undergone a name change. Given that in January 2010 Tor (anonymity network) got about 1/5th the traffic as Tor it seems that the popularity of the anonymity network article is a recent phenomenon. (Even if readers got to the rock formation article first because it was called simply "Tor" at the time, the anonymity network article still accounted for only a small fraction of the Tor traffic.)

This discussion is pathetic. Nobody cares about a damn rock formation. This is almost as pathetic as the Java article, where it is about an island in Indonesia no one cares about, instead of the programming language that obviously everyone wants to know more about. Incendiary Iconoclasm 22:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sweeping generalizations like that are pathetic. "Nobody" you say? Geologists likely care a lot more about a rock formation than an anonymity network that appeals only to a fringe population. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Nobody cares about the rock formation. People don't even know what that is. Tor (the anonimity network) is very popular, by the way, and people come here to know more about how the software works. They don't come here for a stupid rock no one has ever heard of. Incendiary Iconoclasm 00:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
As I said, sweeping generalizations like that are pathetic. And you just made an excellent case for renaming, as the criterion in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC about the topic having long-term significance and educational value. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose move Because if this page is moved it will be deleted and the record of this move discussion will disappear. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

That is not how Wikipedia works. The talk page with the move discussion will be moved with the main page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Second that; Toddy1 is correct. @Ottawahitech: you can read more about what moves are and are not at the help page WP:MOVE. VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 1) per Amatulic. 2) It seems a bad idea to rename articles every few months or years just because one article is temporarily more popular than another. (For an easily changeable online encyclopedia, the idea is not without merit. For example, during the OJ Simpson trial, we could have moved OJ to OJ (disambiguation) and made OJ a redirect to O.J.Simpson. But at first glance this seems a bad idea.)--Wikimedes (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, and there are other examples. For instance, the topic of drones has been in the news a lot lately, but that isn't a reason to move the disambiguation page drone to unmanned aerial vehicle, even though most people who type "drone" in the search box are likely looking for the UAV article based on the hit counts. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Amatulic. Neodop (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 25 February 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). sst✈ 16:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Tor (anonymity network)Tor (technology) Tor (information technology)WP:PRECISE: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that"; see also information technology and virtual technology. fgnievinski (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. WP:PRECISE is just one of the five WP:CRITERIA for article titles; the proposed title is less recognizable and less natural. Proposed title also is inadequately precise, as (for example) the Tor missile and Tor rifle could also be considered "technologies". VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
How about Tor (information technology)? fgnievinski (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not the only thing in information technology referred to as "tor", torrents frequently use the term "tor" to refer to torrents, torrent files (tor files), torrent sites, etc -- (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Torrent is not even in Tor (disambiguation). fgnievinski (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Then why don't you add it to there? The page is edit protected. IT clearly is used for torrent, per what's found on the internet. -- (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
"Technology" seems a pretty useless word for parenthetical disambiguation in this particular context. VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
As I said above: How about Tor (information technology)? fgnievinski (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Repeating it doesn't make it less useless. VQuakr (talk) 05:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose not the only technology topic referred to as "tor", there are many technology topics on the disambiguation page. Further, the name of the technology used inside Tor is onion routing not "tor" -- (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
As I said above: How about Tor (information technology)? Further, both Tor and onion routing are instances of information technology. fgnievinski (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not the technology being TOR, the technology behind TOR is called onion routing; it's not the only information technology topic referred to as 'tor' either. So all around a bad name -- (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The Tor network is not the same thing as The Onion Router, the basic technology behind the Tor network. The most notable difference is that it is a network, not a technology. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
A (compouter) network is an instance of (information) technology. fgnievinski (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Please elaborate; this is not a voting. fgnievinski (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Call for a six-month moratorium on new requested moves[edit]

Should we summarily close any requested moves until September 1st, 2016?

  • Support as proposer. We have had so many requested moves lately that it is time to give it a rest. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support prefer a 1 year ban though; this just keeps going round and round and round -- (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The reason the issue keeps being raised is because the title “Tor (anonymity network)” isn’t working and doesn’t faithfully represent the article’s contents. Only when we fix the title—or divide the article into sufficient component subarticles—will the requests to move finally stop. Let us not simply kick the can down the road. —LLarson (said & done) 16:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Tor" is the best name for the article. The subject covered here gets 10 times the traffic of any other concept and has 10 times as many reliable sources discussing the concept. Renames keep getting proposed because the title seems like it does not fit, and in fact, the current title does not fit. The current name is used to keep the status quo default not because there was ever consensus to select it. There are unanswered arguments on both sides and it could be possible to have more discussion.
I think the matter could be settled if someone identified the second most popular "tor" concept after this one, and then estimated the combined popularity of all tor concepts other than this one. My expectation is that this article is much more popular than all the others put together. If someone can refute that or fail to refute that then I think that would settle the issue. The standing argument for not making this article primary is the supposition that other concepts are more significant, but I have not seen another article with significant pageviews or another concept with many sources discussing it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Bittorrent is not even one of the articles on the disambiguation page. I am not aware of any sources calling bittorrent "tor" and so far as I know no one has used "tor" to refer to "bittorrent" on-wiki or off. So far as I understand, Tor (rock formation) is asserted to be the number #2. This Tor has 170,000 monthly views and about 160 citations versus 4,000 monthly views and 6 citations - see traffic. I am open to hearing why you think Bittorrent ought to be the article to compare, but my expectation was that this article would be compared to an article on the disambiguation page. Is there anyone who wants to present an article to compare with this one by traffic, citations, or some other measurement? Someone else suggested that "tor" rock formation is a decades-old term whereas tor the software is about 15 years old. That also is true and something to take into consideration somehow if someone wants to advance that position. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


I was introduced to TorFlow today, a striking visualization of the data flowing over the Tor network, but I am unsure how to incorporate it into the article. Suggestions?

kencf0618 (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's particular useful to directly include, I would find some news coverage about it and add it to relevant comments about the latest statistics Deku-shrub (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. There shall certainly be some academic research using this tool as well, so we shall await citations. kencf0618 (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A link to this page in the external links section wouldn't hurt; I think it would add to the value of this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree, this should be an external link. So I did it! Herostratus (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tor (anonymity network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Chances of Detection[edit]

I think we should include this information in the article to put weaknesses in perspective. "At the most basic level, an attacker who runs two poisoned Tor nodes—one entry, one exit—is able to analyse traffic and thereby identify the tiny, unlucky percentage of users whose circuit happened to cross both of those nodes. At present the Tor network offers, out of a total of around 7,000 relays, around 2,000 guard (entry) nodes and around 1,000 exit nodes. So the odds of such an event happening are one in two million (1/2000 x 1/1000), give or take." Source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is useless information as this just goes for this type of attack and just for exactly two poisoned Tor nodes while it could be any number. --Fixuture (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Emphasize sources of funding[edit]

I propose expanding the "Reception, impact, and legislation" section (6) to emphasize Tor's sources of public and private funding:

"Tor has received funding from U.S. government agencies including the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; the National Science Foundation; the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory; and DARPA. Some have proposed that the government values Tor's commitment to free speech, and uses the darknet to gather intelligence.[19] Private sponsors include Reddit, Google, and Human Rights Watch.[20]"

19. Moore, Daniel; Rid, Thomas. "Cryptopolitik and the Darknet". Survival. Feb2016, Vol. 58 Issue 1, p7-38. 32p.

20. Inc., The Tor Project,. "Tor: Sponsors". Retrieved 2016-10-28.

Atticusbixby (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


How do u sign up for darkweb? Aphe de.soul (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

An article's talk page is used to discuss changes/improvements made to that specific article. As WP:TPG states, it's neither a platform for Q&As, nor it is a forum. Try asking your question(s) on Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- ChamithN (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Mouse fingerprinting?[edit]

An editor is wanting to remove the following material, with an edit summary of "Removed mouse fingerprinting as it's not actually a TOR network specific weakness it's a browser "issue" - mouse fingerprinting or browser profiling could be used to "identify" the same unique user in most web browsers":

In March 2016 a security researcher based in Barcelona, Spain demonstrated that laboratory techniques using time measurement via JavaScript at the 1-millisecond level[1] could potentially identify and correlate a user's unique mouse movements provided that the user has visited the same "fingerprinting" website with both the Tor browser and a regular browser.[2] This proof of concept exploits the "time measurement via JavaScript" issue which has been an open ticket on the Tor Project for ten months.[3]
  1. ^ Cimpanu, Catalin (10 March 2016). "Tor Users Can Be Tracked Based on Their Mouse Movements". Softpedia. Retrieved 11 March 2016. 
  2. ^ Garanich, Gleb (10 March 2016). "Click bait: Tor users can be tracked by mouse movements". Reuters. Retrieved 10 March 2016. 
  3. ^ Anonymous (10 March 2016). "Tor Users Can Be Tracked Based On Their Mouse Movements". Slashdot. Retrieved 11 March 2016. 

And I'm not sure the material should be removed. On the one hand the point is well taken that mouse fingerprinting is not Tor-specific. On the other hand, apparently mouse fingerprinting is specifically a problem for people trying to be anonymous, which ties in with Tor, and all three of the refs talk about Tor specifically. Because of this I've restored the material for now, subject to discussion. It may well be that it doesn't belong though. The article is already pretty long. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Herostratus: imo such material should simply be split into a separate section (e.g. "General vulnerabilities" / "Issues not specific to Tor" etc). Also once this section grows long enough it should be moved into a separate article (e.g. "Anonymity-related browser vulnerabilities") and only be linked from here in the case that all of those issues also apply to Tor. --Fixuture (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. Herostratus (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia on Tor[edit]

I asked Jimmy Wales about creating a Tor hidden service (just like Facebook has one) for Wikipedia on his talk page here.

This would be good for improving Wikipedia's resilience and allow people to anonymously read, and potentially/preferably also write, Wikipedia.

I'd be interested in what you think of this. Do you have some concerns with this or could you provide help in implementing this?

For instance I guess improving anonymous write-access to Wikipedia also opens doors to some types of malicious edits and hence I'd suggest to have all edits made via Tor remain pending (or alike) even if the page is unprotected.

I also suggested an I2P eepsite and some other cybersecurity measures in the talk page entry.

--Fixuture (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)