Talk:Dabiq (magazine)

Release dates?

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)

Maybe. But, it seems to be a monthly magazine and the Islamic and Georgian calendar months do not line up. Also, the publishers and main readers of the magazine know the monthly periods so... Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Issue Link list

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)

Plus a link in 'External links' to its {{Official website|...}}? ;) -Lopifalko (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You know, I'm really not sure what Wikipedia's policy on that would be :) Dtellett (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked it up, WP:LINKSTOAVOID says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to: Sites containing ... content that is illegal to access in the United States." So at least as far as that's concerned, it looks as though we could. I've not looked for any further clarifications. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:49, 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)

There is no way these links are appropriate for Wikipedia. A single link to the official website, or sometimes a mirror thereof, might be appropriate but a specific link to each issue is totally not. Check out the external links policy for many reasons for this. Cheers, Nikthestunned 09:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant just the list of the editions, not the links. I probably don't think the links are neccesary. Tom W (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

List of editions is also questionable since it's unwieldy to maintain, takes up a lot of space and is not really encyclopedia-worthy. I'm not aware of Wikipedia carrying it for any other periodicals. Dtellett (talk) 11:45, 22 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)

"Normally, only one official link is included....Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence... Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says " (emphasis mine) Also "On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views."

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)

• I have removed the section. There is no excuse to be found in WP:EL, for instance, for linking every issue of a magazine; one wonders what the rationale was here. In other words, I consider this to be a violation of EL but, worse, I think it is a serious violation of NPOV. We are essentially functioning as a portal for those who want to look at this content, and that is not what we're here for. As for censorship--bleh, this is not a free-speech zone. I consider my edit to be made on administrative grounds, and want to point interested editors to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I will post the relevant template on this talk page next. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

(Following two comments reposted from User talk:Drmies w/ ec addendum underlined)):

The edit summary for this edit of yours seems to be inaccurate. The edit summary is 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)

Gotcha--good point. I don't like a table listing each issue, but you are right: my (I think hastily written) edit summary was incorrect, and if you and Dtellett think it's acceptable, then that's fine. My apologies for the incorrect summary. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Very good. I didn't initially see your comment on the talk page. (Your edit summary led me to conclude you hadn't visited it.) Thanks for reconsidering. ISIS and Dabiq disgust me, and wikipedia is not censored. I will restore the (link-free) issue list to the page if you don't, but I urge you to do so yourself, or at least clarify that you edited as an editor not an admin, as you said you did it on administrative grounds, but appear to recognize you have identified no such administrative grounds. --Elvey^(t•c) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

'Deep web' claims

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. Nikthestunned 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)

I'll give you that something along the lines of "published by ISIS via the deep web" somewhere in the article might be appropriate (maybe after the first sentence?), but disagree with everything else you included in your edit. I'd also like more sources for this edit, specifically English ones where available. Nikthestunned 15:16, 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)

hopesandfears doesn't look reliable to me but Breibart is. On second thought I'm not sure where in the article would be best for this, however. Maybe at the start of the 'Details' section instead? I think maybe something like "Dabiq is published by ISIS via the deep web, although it's widely available online through other sources." and reference Breitbart, smartweek.it and IBT? Nikthestunned 15:46, 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)

A question

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)

It's not, all in-depth information should be removed unless it's itself particularly notable for whatever reason. I've removed the Oct and Feb bits, thanks for that (except the one particularly notable part) - though don't see anything about July other than that was when it was first published? Cheers Nikthestunned 09:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

A test, in which only "in-depth information" that is "particularly notable for whatever reason" is acceptable, is highly subjective. Now in Wiki Dabiq, apparently only the October 2014 edition is able to pass this nebulous criteria. Suggest (1) the sentence, " In its October 2014 issue . . . ." be removed (2) the Wiki page Inspire (magazine)#Issues be used as template and major contents, in few words, be listed against each Dabiq edition, in a sixth column. Unlike the Dabiq (magazine), the Inspire (magazine) article has a number of editions specifically covered with "in-depth information". So now we have an inconsistency. Speedrailsm (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

No objections. Article updated. Speedrailsm (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I object, per the above. You should note that not everyone edits every single day. As I said before we should not be adding any information about the magazine's articles themselves, unless those articles are notable (i.e., mentioned in many reliable sources itself, as per the information I left in - which has FIVE sources present). If you'd like a good guide for articles, btw, rather than picking some random article, I suggest you look at the featured articles category for magazines - these are the best articles Wikipedia has to offer for this subject - I doubt you'll even see any with an article list at all. Please don't add those back in without a good reason and a talk page discussion. Cheers Nikthestunned 09:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Nikthestunned offers FA-Class magazine articles as the template for the Dabiq article.

1 All of those 'FA-Class magazines' have a very large numbers of print editions - so I agree, "I doubt you'll even see any with an article list at all". Dabiq is very different

2 How can a trivial-fiction, 200-editions-plus, last-published-36-years-ago, Galaxy Science Fiction, print magazine be compared with the 14 editions of the current-and-electronic, Dabiq, published by the world's Number One terrorist group ISIL ?

3 Other differences

• Wiki edits this year 2016:
  • Galaxy Science Fiction > 3
  • Dabiq (magazine) > 48

• Wiki article traffic statistics (page views) for 20 Jan 2016 (latest date available):
  • Galaxy Science Fiction > 52
  • Dabiq (magazine) > 4,929

4 Each of those FA-Class magazine articles have many, many, references to specific content contained in specified editions. Further, most of those advocated-template-articles only have ONE (1) RS citation. Nikthestunned implies that the benchmark-criteria for Dabiq Wiki content requires FIVE (5) RS citations.

5 Unlike the FA-Class magazine benchmark of ONE (1) RS citation, Nikthestunned deletes Dabiq content having (only) TWO (2) RS citations. If required, a quick Google search could provide FIVE (1) RS citations for each inclusion.

6 Nikthestunned might provide a proposal for the (his non-conforming) content-summaries in Inspire (magazine)#Issues

7 Re Wiki Dabiq > Recommend add that sixth column and add information on selected Dabiq contents.

8 Wikimedia Foundation is examining why contributors are losing interest in Wikipedia and raises concern regarding, "the philosophy of deletionism". Speedrailsm (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

1) Dabiq is a magazine, those are the best magazine articles - of course they're a good template to start from

4) You misunderstand - I left notable article information in as it has been widely mentioned in reliable sources

6) I'd remove that information from this article also, and may well do so when I have time

I disagree with everything else and / or it's not relevant to this content dispute. Nikthestunned 08:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Not at all convincing. Nikthestunned requires Category:FA-Class magazine articles to be used as the template. In that case, all of the Wiki-content in the Inspire (magazine)#Issues and Dabiq (magazine)#Issues needs to be deleted, as it is non-conforming. Otherwise, you have a double standard here. Speedrailsm (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

...I gave you an example of articles which Wikipedia has decided are the best for this topic (given you decided to compare to some other random article). I don't know what further you're trying to infer here but apologies if those examples were not useful to you - that's where I start when trying to write a good quality Wikipedia article in any topic. Also yes, in-depth article information should be deleted from that other page, that doesn't affect its general notability though? Nikthestunned 15:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Nik: I await your action on your commitment 6) "I'd remove that information from this article also, and may well do so when I have time." Speedrailsm (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have a different understanding of this conversation than I do. Nikthestunned 12:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I clearly understand your conversation and I await your action on your commitment 6) "I'd remove that information from this article also, and may well do so when I have time." Speedrailsm (talk) 21:16, 20 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. Nikthestunned 08:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018222114/http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/569402/20141013/islamic-state-dabiq-magazine-isis-slavery.htm to http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/569402/20141013/islamic-state-dabiq-magazine-isis-slavery.htm

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).

• 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) 04:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)