This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dabiq (magazine) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Dabiq (magazine), along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
Would it not be better and more user friendly if the dates were also in the Georgian calender. 94.15.187.30 ( talk) 04:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has clear policies about not being a repository of links to off-site material or an index service for periodicals. Obviously the publication itself should be covered, as should further discussion of specific issues of the magazine as attested in reliable third party sources, that's fine, but I think the burden of proof to maintain the article in a form consisting primarily listings of links to primary source material lies on those seeking the exception to WP's usual policies, and they should seek consensus here first, via RfC if necessary. Inherited notability and WP:RECENTISM don't seem like good reasons to make an exception here, and nor does the non-availability of the magazine issues in your average bookstore. The single link to the Clarion project at the bottom should be sufficient for people wishing to investigate the material further. Dtellett ( talk) 18:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I love the self-policing that stops freedom of expression in the West. If we have freedom of expression, or freedom of speech, what does it matter if the link to their website is posted? What kind of self-imposed censorship are you trying to implement, here? The panopticon seems in full effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.151.51.114 ( talk) 04:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it should probably be included, but am not sure of the relevant policies. If someone could find some in support of it that would be great. Thanks Tom W ( talk) 06:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Why were those links inappropriate? I read the external links policy and I could not relate any of the points with this situation. 148.241.128.25 ( talk) 19:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Dabiq is a unique case. It is a magazine released by Islamic State. And most of our viewers search Dabiq not to read about history only but getting a copy. I had originally posted links to Dabiq. However, since it does not completely fit in to the wiki policies. Or even if it does. Let us keep the link for educational purpose and we should keep in mind that none of the pdf's of Dabiq are uploaded over wikipedia or wikimedia site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMXVI ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
no--we are not a directory. a link to an official website is acceptable (in general--this case may be different), but we're not linking to all issues--certainly not for this topic). But your edit does NOT remove links to each issue. That was already done by a previous edit - and has been fought / edit warred over repeatedly. [1], and many more, most recent diff. Dtellett's moderate/middle ground position (mention the issues, but don't link to the issues) seems quite appropriate and I wonder if your intention was to overturn it. Your edit summary suggests not, but your edit does so. Please reconsider your overturn. (( edit conflict) Your comment doesn't serve to clear up the situation. You claim to have enforced EL, but you removed no external links with that edit of yours. I find nothing at WP:EL to support your edit removing the list of issues entirely. Your claim that your edit removes a violation of EL appears to be wholly inaccurate. -- Elvey( t• c) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC) -- Elvey( t• c) 20:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
So I can't read Italian and Google translate does a pretty poor job with the cited article, but the claim that the "magazine is available only using web browsers that allow access and browsing into the deep web" is just false. I can access it easily using the first few results of a Google search for one, it was available on amazon for a short while, and every issue is seemingly being republished by the 'Clarion Project'. The edit itself is also pretty POV. Nik the stunned 10:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Point 1) "Due to its violent and terrorist inspiration" is not POV, is what it is. It is a magazine that worship terrorism as a good manner to reach strategic and tactical objectives, and call them "blessed attacks".
Point 2) Yes, you can easily read the magazine, but every single issue of Dabiq is recovered by Clarion Project from the deep web (they have their methods) and ONLY THEN brought on the visible web.
Point 3) Indeed, the source says: "Tramite il Deep Web vengono caricati in rete, una volta generato il link che non può essere indicizzato dai motori di ricerca" or Through the Deep Web is loaded on the network, once created the link that can not be indexed by search engines.
Now, we can change the phrase, but the fact that Dabiq is originated on the deep web, is a fact. And as a fact it is necessary to report it. 87.10.0.148 ( talk) 13:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Fair, and yes after the first sentence, it seems good. These should be good as sources:
One - check on "A digital caliphate" chapter; "Once an issue is finished, Weyers explains, its creators upload the PDF to the deep web—the part of the internet that can’t be indexed by search engines. "
Two - Very interesting; it reports that
Abdelhamid Abaaoud was interviewed by Dabiq magazine (I read the interview by myself, by the way) and that indeed the interview was published by Dabiq on deep web, of course.
Anyway you can find others by yourself, too. It is not a secret that they publicize themselves on the deep web in the long period. 87.10.0.148 ( talk) 16:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
this is complete rubbish and ignorance (same for your BS 'sources')
DABIQ IS NOT FOUND ON THE DEEP WEB OR DARK WEB IT IS OPENLY AVAILABLE THROUGH A REGULAR BROWSER ON GOOGLE SEARCHABLE WEBSITES
https://halummu.wordpress.com/category/dabiq-magazine/page/2/
you can find all issues here on a google searchable wordpress site
when they are released say through twitter, that is in a PDF format and anyone can see it on twitter and open it
+even if it is the case that it is orignally uploaded to the darkweb by the publisher, the links that are given out the people who actually read it, are regular ones on twitter so it is entirely incorrect to say it can only be accessed through the dark web
Your intervent is "complete stupid and ignorant". We are talking about where are the origins of Dabiq, not where it is brought after it's initial release. Anyway learn to read and to use sources, because it is in they that it's said that Dabiq originates itself in the deep web. Use - your - brain. 87.10.0.148 ( talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
-Well, If noone has something against, I will begin the change on the page with the inclusion of a variety of sources in the coming hours; using the suggested sentence "published by ISIS via the deep web". 82.49.187.111 ( talk) 13:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems a good way. Important is to report that Dabiq's place of origin is the deep web, then can be added anything necessary to make it better clear as "widely available online through other sources". I suggest to use even the italian source; is not english but afterall is a source, and other like this are used in many other pages. 82.49.187.111 ( talk) 16:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
the origins of dabiq are whichever IS computer it is originally created on, but you are not suggesting we put that in? the origin of dabiq to the general public is not through the dark web, it is through open distribution on regular internet services someone who wants to read dabiq does NOT have to go to the darkweb, so whether it is at one point on the darkweb is not really relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 ( talk) 16:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You have no point about that. Dabiq first place of pubblication is only the deep web, then it could came even on Mars. Still don't understand it? Deep web is the point of origin of every true illegal or terroristic propaganda, just like Inspire by Al Qaida. Deep web is the web itself (98%), but this is another thing. The thing is that there are sources that say that Dabiq originates on Deep web. You can see in every way you want, but Wikipedia is founded on sources. They are sources, and you are not. 82.49.187.111 ( talk) 17:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
-I looked at the change, and I think it is good. A pleasure to collaborate. Thanks, and goodbye. 82.49.187.111 ( talk) 15:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Nikthestunned: Why is 'in-depth article info' permitted relating to the July 2014, Oct 2014 and Feb 2015 editions, but not permitted for the Jan 2016 or April 2016 editions? Speedrailsm ( talk) 00:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I have absolutely no desire to do that and have committed to nothing - I clearly already have one problematic article on the topic, why would I approach another as well at this time?? Just because I've said I don't agree with what's in the article does NOT mean I have any obligation to do anything. Nik the stunned 08:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dabiq (magazine). 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dabiq (magazine) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Dabiq (magazine), along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
Would it not be better and more user friendly if the dates were also in the Georgian calender. 94.15.187.30 ( talk) 04:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has clear policies about not being a repository of links to off-site material or an index service for periodicals. Obviously the publication itself should be covered, as should further discussion of specific issues of the magazine as attested in reliable third party sources, that's fine, but I think the burden of proof to maintain the article in a form consisting primarily listings of links to primary source material lies on those seeking the exception to WP's usual policies, and they should seek consensus here first, via RfC if necessary. Inherited notability and WP:RECENTISM don't seem like good reasons to make an exception here, and nor does the non-availability of the magazine issues in your average bookstore. The single link to the Clarion project at the bottom should be sufficient for people wishing to investigate the material further. Dtellett ( talk) 18:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I love the self-policing that stops freedom of expression in the West. If we have freedom of expression, or freedom of speech, what does it matter if the link to their website is posted? What kind of self-imposed censorship are you trying to implement, here? The panopticon seems in full effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.151.51.114 ( talk) 04:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it should probably be included, but am not sure of the relevant policies. If someone could find some in support of it that would be great. Thanks Tom W ( talk) 06:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Why were those links inappropriate? I read the external links policy and I could not relate any of the points with this situation. 148.241.128.25 ( talk) 19:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Dabiq is a unique case. It is a magazine released by Islamic State. And most of our viewers search Dabiq not to read about history only but getting a copy. I had originally posted links to Dabiq. However, since it does not completely fit in to the wiki policies. Or even if it does. Let us keep the link for educational purpose and we should keep in mind that none of the pdf's of Dabiq are uploaded over wikipedia or wikimedia site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMXVI ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
no--we are not a directory. a link to an official website is acceptable (in general--this case may be different), but we're not linking to all issues--certainly not for this topic). But your edit does NOT remove links to each issue. That was already done by a previous edit - and has been fought / edit warred over repeatedly. [1], and many more, most recent diff. Dtellett's moderate/middle ground position (mention the issues, but don't link to the issues) seems quite appropriate and I wonder if your intention was to overturn it. Your edit summary suggests not, but your edit does so. Please reconsider your overturn. (( edit conflict) Your comment doesn't serve to clear up the situation. You claim to have enforced EL, but you removed no external links with that edit of yours. I find nothing at WP:EL to support your edit removing the list of issues entirely. Your claim that your edit removes a violation of EL appears to be wholly inaccurate. -- Elvey( t• c) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC) -- Elvey( t• c) 20:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
So I can't read Italian and Google translate does a pretty poor job with the cited article, but the claim that the "magazine is available only using web browsers that allow access and browsing into the deep web" is just false. I can access it easily using the first few results of a Google search for one, it was available on amazon for a short while, and every issue is seemingly being republished by the 'Clarion Project'. The edit itself is also pretty POV. Nik the stunned 10:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Point 1) "Due to its violent and terrorist inspiration" is not POV, is what it is. It is a magazine that worship terrorism as a good manner to reach strategic and tactical objectives, and call them "blessed attacks".
Point 2) Yes, you can easily read the magazine, but every single issue of Dabiq is recovered by Clarion Project from the deep web (they have their methods) and ONLY THEN brought on the visible web.
Point 3) Indeed, the source says: "Tramite il Deep Web vengono caricati in rete, una volta generato il link che non può essere indicizzato dai motori di ricerca" or Through the Deep Web is loaded on the network, once created the link that can not be indexed by search engines.
Now, we can change the phrase, but the fact that Dabiq is originated on the deep web, is a fact. And as a fact it is necessary to report it. 87.10.0.148 ( talk) 13:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Fair, and yes after the first sentence, it seems good. These should be good as sources:
One - check on "A digital caliphate" chapter; "Once an issue is finished, Weyers explains, its creators upload the PDF to the deep web—the part of the internet that can’t be indexed by search engines. "
Two - Very interesting; it reports that
Abdelhamid Abaaoud was interviewed by Dabiq magazine (I read the interview by myself, by the way) and that indeed the interview was published by Dabiq on deep web, of course.
Anyway you can find others by yourself, too. It is not a secret that they publicize themselves on the deep web in the long period. 87.10.0.148 ( talk) 16:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
this is complete rubbish and ignorance (same for your BS 'sources')
DABIQ IS NOT FOUND ON THE DEEP WEB OR DARK WEB IT IS OPENLY AVAILABLE THROUGH A REGULAR BROWSER ON GOOGLE SEARCHABLE WEBSITES
https://halummu.wordpress.com/category/dabiq-magazine/page/2/
you can find all issues here on a google searchable wordpress site
when they are released say through twitter, that is in a PDF format and anyone can see it on twitter and open it
+even if it is the case that it is orignally uploaded to the darkweb by the publisher, the links that are given out the people who actually read it, are regular ones on twitter so it is entirely incorrect to say it can only be accessed through the dark web
Your intervent is "complete stupid and ignorant". We are talking about where are the origins of Dabiq, not where it is brought after it's initial release. Anyway learn to read and to use sources, because it is in they that it's said that Dabiq originates itself in the deep web. Use - your - brain. 87.10.0.148 ( talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
-Well, If noone has something against, I will begin the change on the page with the inclusion of a variety of sources in the coming hours; using the suggested sentence "published by ISIS via the deep web". 82.49.187.111 ( talk) 13:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems a good way. Important is to report that Dabiq's place of origin is the deep web, then can be added anything necessary to make it better clear as "widely available online through other sources". I suggest to use even the italian source; is not english but afterall is a source, and other like this are used in many other pages. 82.49.187.111 ( talk) 16:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
the origins of dabiq are whichever IS computer it is originally created on, but you are not suggesting we put that in? the origin of dabiq to the general public is not through the dark web, it is through open distribution on regular internet services someone who wants to read dabiq does NOT have to go to the darkweb, so whether it is at one point on the darkweb is not really relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 ( talk) 16:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You have no point about that. Dabiq first place of pubblication is only the deep web, then it could came even on Mars. Still don't understand it? Deep web is the point of origin of every true illegal or terroristic propaganda, just like Inspire by Al Qaida. Deep web is the web itself (98%), but this is another thing. The thing is that there are sources that say that Dabiq originates on Deep web. You can see in every way you want, but Wikipedia is founded on sources. They are sources, and you are not. 82.49.187.111 ( talk) 17:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
-I looked at the change, and I think it is good. A pleasure to collaborate. Thanks, and goodbye. 82.49.187.111 ( talk) 15:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Nikthestunned: Why is 'in-depth article info' permitted relating to the July 2014, Oct 2014 and Feb 2015 editions, but not permitted for the Jan 2016 or April 2016 editions? Speedrailsm ( talk) 00:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I have absolutely no desire to do that and have committed to nothing - I clearly already have one problematic article on the topic, why would I approach another as well at this time?? Just because I've said I don't agree with what's in the article does NOT mean I have any obligation to do anything. Nik the stunned 08:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dabiq (magazine). 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)