Talk:LiveLeak

Made a few changes

Feel free to revert anything I may have incorrectly changed Bladesofhalo 22:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To Whom Belongs LiveLeak.com?

Who invested money to realize this website? Also, it shows no advertising banners. So how does this site finances itself? I could not find anything about this yet. edit: I researched further and the whois-check shows DomainsByProxy.com as owner. This companys slogan is "Your identity is nobodys bussines but ours". Dead end.

Nothing said about the transition from www.ogrish.com a "shock site".

Liveleak what is it ... political or shock site?. It's progenitor www.ogrish.com was certainly known as a shock site. Liveleak seemed to move into the mainstream somehow.

They are both news sites, not shock sites, they both have warnings, shock sites have no such thing. 67.161.97.160 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

^that was me forgot to log in Supra guy 20:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What's with the logo? Lightspeed venture partners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.130.72 (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fitna?

What about the anti-islam movie "Fitna" by Geert Wilders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.169.162 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned there. Jmlk17 06:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Right wing?

Is there a source for that first adjective? LL doesn't seem to be right-wing; rather, as the article itself says, it aims for neutrality. --140.180.5.93 (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I, too, found the intro puzzling and came to the talk page to see if it was part of a back and forth edit dispute. History shows it was added in the most recent edit. I've reverted it because it's unsourced and otherwise unqualified. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I never saw the original inclusion of the term in the article, I think that suggesting or stating that Liveleak has a leaning toward the right is fair enough. Perhaps I should qualify this by saying that the viewers / users who comment there seem to be predominately right wing. A typical example would be any video that mentions guns or gun control: the messages / replies underneath often appear to be written by quite unreasonable people, who seem to think that President Obama is some kind of satanic figure that wants to ruin their lives… Also a quick search will show that the word "liberal" (used perhaps pejoratively) is included in the description of many videos at the site. Whoever originally added the term "right wing" to the article here won't have been the first to recognise this. There's no smoke without fire?

86.135.100.126 (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

shh, don't question the narrative, and remember, free speech is for right-wing nazis!72.49.199.127 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Added a bit about Racial slurs and racism on LiveLeak

Seems liveleak don't like the word ni**er, but can't really be sure and can't cite anything yet.

Very few people like that word, so I don't see why that would merit inclusion here. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the comment section is extreeeeemely racist, sometimes it's not even worth reading the comments.

There should be something in here about the comment section which is notorious.Boones 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boone jenner (talk • contribs)

Should there be something about the fact that they have a huge number of beheading, accidental death, Gore,etc.. but removed their entire comment feature because suddenly the word "nigger" is somehow more offensive than terrorists executing people?

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Liveleak → LiveLeak – The name is stylized as LiveLeak, with two capital L's, on the website and multiple instances in this article. I believe it would be productive to change the name to reflect this stylization.ThunderPower (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Seems to be general usage, I see that news articles follow this stylization [1]. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

US Soldier Section

What is the point of this section? Does the military restrict access to liveleak too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have since deleted that section.

-U.S. soldiers- Since May 14, 2007, The United States Department of Defense has restricted access to websites such as YouTube and MySpace in order to prevent violations of Operations Security. One can easily watch war footage from Iraq and Afghanistan, which many show videos from soldiers of the United States and other countries.

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LiveLeak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080401001445/http://forums.liveleak.com/blog.php?b=16 to http://forums.liveleak.com/blog.php?b=16
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140824115448/http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/22/liveleak-bans-islamic-state-beheading-videos-after-james-foley-murder to http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/22/liveleak-bans-islamic-state-beheading-videos-after-james-foley-murder

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Story in Business Insider UK vs AU

Regarding the foundation date, the following two articles are not an exact clone of each other as I had initially thought:

a. http://uk.businessinsider.com/profile-of-hayden-hewitt-founder-of-liveleak-2014-10
b. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/profile-of-hayden-hewitt-founder-of-liveleak-2014-10

a. Quote: "But on Halloween 2006, Ogrish abruptly shut down, directing its users to visit a new video service: LiveLeak."
b. Quote: "But in November 2006, Ogrish abruptly shut down, directing its users to visit a new video service: LiveLeak."

I have added a reference to (a) in the infobox as that date is also given in the book I added, and since November starts the day after Halloween (b) is not a necessarily contradiction of (a).
Youanickname (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Liveleak Looks DEAD to me

Almost overnight...it has turned to crap. It looks like a corpse site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Hewitt finally felt the heat? I mean, with the user comments which were featured in the recent years alone I'm pretty surprised that he is still alive (which gives some big room for speculations...hand out the alu foil). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:560:4284:C300:881D:C71F:790A:421 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Edited for Grammar

I came across this one and created an account just to clean up the legibility of everything. Let me know if I messed anything up or moved too fast. Trizixx (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Liveleak.com censorship

Hi I just read about liveleak.com on wikipedia.

"LiveLeak aims to freely host real footage of politics, war, and many other world events and to encourage and foster a culture of citizen journalism'.[7][8] Hayden Hewitt of Manchester is the only public member of LiveLeak's founding team.[4]"

Liveleak are disabling any comments relating to people of colour, but comments relating to white people are allowed. This is a racist attitude allowing comments ONLY regarding non African origin people. The article should be changed to reflect this anomaly, liveleak are also not allowing users to delete their accounts, presumably to show advertisers how many users they have.

Censorship

It also deletes the amateur videos and photos of fatal motorsport crashes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.116.234 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Shuts down right whenever Israel/Hamas conflict heats up?

Shuts down right whenever Israel/Hamas conflict heats up so that no one can see what is happening in the middle east?

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to boldly close due to failing the criteria for notability and prose size (see WP:WHENSPLIT). Wretchskull (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose this page LiveLeak be split into a separate title called ItemFix. The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. Frontman830 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, requesting speedy closure: No. The article would not be comprehensive enough, plus there are virtually no secondary sources about the website except for reports about LiveLeak being redirected to ItemFix, thus failing the criteria for comprehensiveness; not to mention that articles usually need to be a certain size before splitting per WP:MERGE guidelines. Wretchskull (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Added a bit of info on ItemFix redirect!

I also made some grammar fixes. I'm glad to help people understand things! Jason and Henry (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Scottdude007 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Shock site?!

Should LiveLeak be considered a shock site? because LiveLeak was known for mostly having gory and violent videos. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Should the new "ItemFix" have its own page?

I ask this because the new site seems important to LL's "genealogy," so to speak. Scottdude007 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Little to no mention of its reputation among internet users for its shock content?

Hi. I would say that LiveLeak was, to most internet users well-aware of it, most known for being a site where you would see workplace accidents, people getting injured, etc. if one saw a video with a LiveLeak logo in the corner on another site, one could surely expect someone to be hurt in the video, spawning jokes such as the following: https://ifunny.co/gif/chinese-factory-workers-when-they-see-the-liveleak-logo-in-X57SkTty7

Any search of a phrase such as "factory workers liveleak meme" online will bring you to many such examples of this sentiment across the internet, so I don't feel that simply touching on its allowing of the most notorious and egregious videos paints much of an accurate picture.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/style/really-bad-stuff.html

Liveleak isn’t the sort of site where you just happen upon something horrific; horrific videos are what its users, dedicated or casual, come there to see.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/7/22424356/liveleak-shock-site-shuts-down-itemfix

Video site LiveLeak, best known for hosting gruesome footage that mainstream rivals wouldn’t touch

WindowEnthuziast557 (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Christchurch response

I believe we should note this [2] where they refused to host the chrischurch massacre BarakHussan (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

oh wait its already added disregard this message BarakHussan (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Logo of LiveLeak (2008-2021).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Videos from LiveLeak

Is there any consensus on if these should be kept or removed? I ask as I can see that two out of four videos were recently removed, which seems arbitrary. Are there examples elsewhere on Wikipedia of similar NSFL content, and if so, how it's handled?

Chronque (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I have added back the two videos that where removed, Wikipedia is not censored! 1timeuse75 (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I think these 2 videos should be removed. They are just here for the sake of traumatising people in the site and have no purpose of existing. There just needs to be 2 videos, to show the content, and that’s it. Datawikiperson (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't really get what having the videos in your face adds, someone can want to know what something is without having people dying in their face. Other pages for other video sharing websites dont do anything similar, there is no porn posted on pornhub's page. When I type in decapitation into wikipedia I am not confronted with real images of people dying. Sorry if formatting for this discussion is off, I don't really ever edit wikipedia, nor do I have an account, just felt kind of annoyed to see these videos just in my face. Not trying to say Wikipedia should be censored, but I don't know what these videos specifically add. I bet if I went to the pages of the specific incidents, those videos wouldn't even be found there. --98.52.182.245 (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

This. Datawikiperson (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

That some readers may find the videos objectionable or offensive is simply not a valid ground for removing them. Day Creature (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The reality as well is that the videos are not 'in your face' as IP editor characterized it. The article presents four small thumbnails. The only 'graphic' thumbnail is the bleeding soldier, and even that isn't truly over the top. Readers aren't presented with auto-playing videos - you have to affirmatively click through.

Contrarily, I also don't really see what value they bring to the article. The textual description of the content that appeared on the site is adequate. That they carried "graphic" content is clearly described; the video clips add nothing to the description.

To be clear, I'm an adamant Wikipedia is not censored advocate. At the same time, that policy has been used in the past as a blockade to changes, where the content isn't necessarily relevant. Three of the four videos are related to the US military - why is that? Liveleak carried a broad range of content, from the odious to the comical. The presentation of three out of four videos focused on US military seems...an intentional choice by one or more editors, and those choices may be driven by more than simply providing 'examples'. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, from the article's inception in 2007 to 2015, the article had no videos. In 2015 the cockpit video was added, and that was all that was there until February 2024 when the 'McCool' video was added. Was Wikipedia censored from 2007 to 2024? No. It was simply that nobody considered a gallery of videos necessary to the article. Now, it's being larded up with more videos, and because of the no censorship argument, removing them is forbidden. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to removal of some of the videos on the basis that they are redundant/don't add any additional encyclopedic value. Day Creature (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t an indiscriminate collection of info (WP:INDISCRIMINATE), and these add nothing to the article nor inform the reader. I suppose they illustrate to the reader what sort of content it hosted, but that’s already better described in prose. Kowal2701 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the best 'compromise' choice might be to return to just the cockpit FLiR video, which was present from 2015 to 2024, as that interval had no calls for removal of the video (because it really isn't 'graphic' in the sense of the other videos), but it does show the 'liveleak' tag in the upper left corner.......for whatever that's worth, which isn't much.

I'm agreeable to removing all videos or retaining the FLiR video to return to its uncontroversial presentation it previously had. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as someone who is only autoconfirmed, I agree that I don't think several random videos are necessary. I think either no videos or one mild example is fair, as an example. Chronque (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The selection appears to be random. If LiveLeak is especially notable for hosting a particular video and enough independent sources have reported about that fact (not just about the event filmed), it could be WP:DUE. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

My rationale as described above is to restore the presentation to what it was from 2015 to 2024. As well, the video does present an example video with their logo superimposed, which offers something akin to provenance. However, the article may be fine without even that video. If you can find reliable sourcing that the video presented (or some other video) was somehow noteworthy as an example of liveleak's content, by all means, we can go that direction. A potential problem could be discerning notoriety of a specific video being the primary factor, rather than the notoriety being for liveleak's hosting of it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

What actually happened to liveleak?

This article does not explain why liveleak was actually taken down. Does anyone know why it was? Was it because it was based in england, and since their country has gone to shit the government forced them to take it down? ~2026-29999-31 (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)