Talk:Inspire (magazine)

Canadian Woman was the real editor of INSPIRE....I PERSONALLY ENCOUNTERED HER!!!!

Prior to INSPIRE, she used to work on jihadunspun.com, a reactionary Al Qaida website. http://www.cabaltimes.com/2013/08/22/canadas-department-of-terrorism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamad (talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

question

further evidence that religion is stupid and appeals to selfish, self centered whiny babies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.72.252 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But where is the website of the magazine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.217.8 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 2010 July 2

I don't know. I didn't go looking for it, since the pdf is reported to be infected with a virus. Geo Swan (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The virus bits garbage like the rest of the dodgy authors guesses. It's obviously not Military propaganda since if anything it's created heaps of press. Original that everyones talking about seems from here http://www.archive.org/details/Inspire_06 It seems it was corrupted on upload. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.192.78 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a very serious concern about the attribution of the magazine to the true authors, who I suspect are not even from outside the USA. If that is so, then the above comment asserting that "[i]t's obviously not Military propaganda" may not just be hopelessly naive, but deliberately fraudulent (like the magazine). The author gives "heaps of press" as the reason why it should NOT be considered suspect, and yet, this would be the most likely desired result of such an action if taken by USA psychological operations personnel. Also, this comment conveniently links to the .pdf.JJYossarian (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to download the file to read the magazine but Bitdefender says it contains a generic toolbar add virus. How stupid can these people be putting some kind of add virus on a magazine ? People are well equiped these days with kaspersky and bitdefender and notice these things. Pity cuse I would like to have a look at the magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.15.227 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not corrupted on upload, and it contains no virus (the virus claim is from a technically ignorant newspaper editor). The PDF file has been made to contain text that looks like garbage. If the file were corrupted, it would be simply unreadable by a PDF reader. Most likely the magazine is simply a joke, and the joker didn't want to spend the time to write the entire magazine. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Evan Kohlmann's NEFA claimed to have first found it, didn't they? I suspect they are the actual authors. Geo Swan (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The magazine can be found on this jihadi forum (direct link - don't panic re. the internet explorer warning, it's safe): http://www.ansar1.info/showthread.php?t=24133 - I would submit that it is real, not least because it is linked to on this forum. The download links are safe; there are no viruses. Cht85 (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This one, too. I mean, come on - the two comments assuring the world that this thing is real are also the same comments that link to the "evidence" - more of the quite obvious con job. Come on, folks, it's bad enough to con us on our own tax dollars, but you may as well give us a decent show. And seriously, I'm going to see about re-editing the page if there's no follow-up.JJYossarian (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a website devoted to the magazine. It is published only in PDF form. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 21:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

After I downloaded the file via that link from Cht85, I wonder if I'll be under surveillance now for the next 3 months or so, by some secret services, by the police, or by Al-Qa'Idah itself... :-/ --MarsmanRom (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You'd better check the laws of the country you reside in (sedition, anti-terrorism etc.). As even if it is a western democracy (so-called), as my own is, established liberal principles like "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Voltaire) may no longer apply i'm afraid. On the flip side I visited that guy's blog. At http://inshallahshaheed.blogspot.com/2005/10/sociology-of-knowledge.html the irony of a radical theist (and anti-liberal therefore) blogging on the subject of the rational and scientific self-reflexive study of science itself will no doubt be lost on many of his converts. If only people would learn to think for themselves putting these mullahs and their propogandists (of all sorts including the "market mullahs" in the west and particularly the US and a cleary now 'fascist' Russia) out of business then we might one day see peace on Earth. 122.148.41.172 (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

need clarification of Mohsin reference

Currently, the name reference "Mohsin" is vague. Following its Wikilink yields a disambiguation page. My guess is that this reference means

A'amir Mohsin Moreef Al Zaidan Alshihri, Saudi terrorist, killed in a shootout with Saudi security officials in April 2004

If someone can confirm this, please disambiguate the Mohsin Wikilink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwr0 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Confusing sentence about motivation for tactic

In the first paragraph, there is a sentence that reads

 The tactic is used to generate over-reaction by the governments of its Muslim population
 with threats of individual jihadist attacks.

I've tried parsing that several different ways and I still can't figure out for sure what it means. Does it mean "The tactic (promulgating threats/fear of individual jihadist attacks) is used to incite over-reactions by governments against their Muslim populations"? Or something else? --Jhfrontz (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ban?

I recently came across a news item released by the West Midlands Police in the UK saying:

Ahmad admitted three counts of collecting information likely to be of use to a terrorist, including the al-Qaeda publication Inspire. This is the first successful prosecution for possessing the online jihadist magazine.

So it would appear that, in the UK,

1. "collecting information likely to be of use to a terrorist" is a crime;
2. this includes Inspire; and
3. thus Inspire is in effect a banned publication in the UK as its collection is proscribed.

Does anyone know which law this is referring to? Is Inspire indeed banned in the UK? If so, what would be appropriate section title for this information? Int21h (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article from Salon that explains why Inspire is illegal in the UK but not in the US.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/this_magazine_will_get_you_arrested_partner/

World’s most dangerous magazine?

Simply owning a copy of Al Qaeda's "Inspire" is considered a crime in the U.K.

By Corinne Purtill

Salon.com

May 9, 2013 --Nbauman (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I tracked it down and put the information in freedom of speech by country#United Kingdom and Censorship in the United Kingdom. Int21h (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Dab?

I'd be surprised if nobody has ever brought this up before, but there's another magaine with the same name of a very non-jihadist theme. Here's a link to one of the covers. Makes me wonder if there should be a disambiguation for this magazine. ----DanTD (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Published by CIA, not al-Qaida

Pointless WP:SOAP discussion, no sources even offered to back up such a conspiracy, just personal opinions. --Jethro B 00:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.141.161 (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC) No Wikipedia:FRINGE, or Wikipedia:BOLLOCKS! ----DanTD (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I've never seen anything so definitely CIA propaganda. It's not even clever propaganda as even looking at the front cover you can see it's produced by someone with an American cultural mindset. Too funny Vexorg (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC) That's an interesting observation, and one I'm sure many people looking at the publication objectively might agree with. Can you come up with a WP:RS in support? If so, it could be included in the article. Writegeist (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC) The way Wikipedia biases itself to calling sources reliable if they are part of the mainstream media means that those with the most money get to dominate the viewpoints presented on Wikipedia. Which means that even if someone actually provided some evidence the 'gang' would stamp on it with a big jackboot. IOW - no chance in hell. In the wider world many of us work under the notion: "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck!". And the magazine "Inspire" is obviously one of the most crass propaganda hoaxes in recent times. However I do understand that Wikipedia can't work under the 'Walk like a Duck' principle, but at the same time the fact it's biased towards mainstream media ( proven sources of propaganda ) then Wikipedia will always be of alower value to society than it potentially could be. However I don't know the answer to that problem. Vexorg (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC) The claim that enemy propagnda is published by the CIA is PURE Wikipedia:FRINGE, or Wikipedia:BOLLOCKS! You don't have WP:RS for this. Maybe the reason you THINK it's produced witht an "American cultural mindset," is because they want to convert Americans to their version of Islam, and inspire them to become suicide bombers for their jihad. ----DanTD (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC) LOL. I've never heard such Wikipedia:gullible nonsense. Al-Qaeda itself is a fantasy entity so a magazine which has all the hallmarks of American graphic layout/typsetting can only be the product of the same lame propaganda machine taht created Al-Qaeda. Also I didn't say I thought it was produced with an American cultural mindset, I said it was produced by someone with an Ameria cultural mindset. For people outside of America we can spot American'esque publications a mile off. "they want to convert Americans" - Hilarious. A fantasy entity wants to convert Americans? Anyway believe what you want. You probably Wikipedia:Believe the Americans killed Osama Bin Laden in 2011 as well don't you. :) :) - And yes as soon as I find a WP:RS I'll Wikipedia:ADDITTOTHEARTICLE Vexorg (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Find WP:RS sources to back up what you assert to be the WP:TRUTH please. Else your repetitions here are not utile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't worth upon truth it works upon verifiability. Vexorg (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Links to copies of the magazine at the bottom

In this article, it says people have been prosecuted and jailed for having copies of this magazine. I would like to have a browse through these magazines. What is the legality of having these magazines on your PC if you live in Australia? 60.231.88.114 (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is the best place to get legal advice. But I suppose we would include it if there are known cases of anyone being prosecuted in Australia for possessing Inspire. On the other hand the name of the magazine might not always be made public if someone were to get prosecuted for it? Michael5046 (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You will be executed, or you will go to prison for the rest of your life, if your lucky. If you speak to someone else about it, you will be tortured first. Your estate (including your soul) will be forfeited to the Crown, and your children and family will be sent to prison to be raised by felons. As the person above said, though, seek legal advise, as it is extremely unlikely you will be able to ascertain--you know--what the law is by yourself. (Silly citizen, the law is for lawyers, not for regular people.) I, personally, don't care what any law says on the matter, I consider the material political speech and I will seek out (and repeat, if I so choose) political speech at will, as I am an American and such is my birthright. Int21h (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Some people are deleting the links to the pdf files of the magazine, without seeking consensus. I think this is WP:CENSOR, and the files should go back in. They've given many reasons -- first, because it shows how to construct a bomb that can kill people, second, because it's supposedly a "linkfarm," and now because it's supposedly a copyright violation. I don't think it's a copyright violation, and I think this is a pretext for deleting information you don't agree with. This is clearly the purpose of an external link, to link to further information of direct relevance to the article, which this certainly is. I think it's important for people to be able to read this magazine, and make up their own minds, rather than getting second-hand accounts. If the terrorists are so dangerous, then we ought to know as much about them as we can to get insight into their thinking. We should read this for all the reasons given by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. Unless someone can give a convincing reason here in talk, I think the links should go back in. --Nbauman (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we need a collection of links to individual PDF files in the articles. It should however be possible for the average reader to access copies based on information in the article. More precisely, we should have a section on Disribution. Evidently the magazine is published in PDF format and distributed in a variety of ways. I would guess these include making color prints and distributing these in mosques.

If there is on reputable site with a page linking to all issues, we should link to that. The PDF files seem to be hosted my jihadology.net. This page however only lists the first three issues. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There is an article in Science magazine, 26 April 2013, "Human subjects protection and research in terrorism and conflict," which explains why it's so important to study terrorism using sources of the terrorists themselves. "People have studied root causes, group behavior, and diferent approaches to counter such acts. Some of the best cases involved direct interaction with current or former terrorists, producing important results that, for example, replaced caricatures of terrorists as pathological killers with nuanced models of what drives individuals to join such groups and even sacrifice themselves intentionally for a cause."

That is why it is so important to study primary sources of terrorist ideas, and in this case, to link to the actual terrorist documents, It's impossible for someone to understand what terrorists are like or why they act as they do if he doesn't read the actual writings of terrorists. By deleting these links, you're actually making it more difficult to fight terrorism, according to these Science authors who I think are correct. --Nbauman (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Publisher

There seems to be an "error" in attribution the publication of the magazine to SITE Inst. 79.168.13.202 (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Security problem

The first issue of this magazine contains instructions to make a bomb. Isn't a big problem ?
Personally, it bothers me a lot. If someone comes through Wikipedia and accesses this manual, and after he commits an attack with it ... Isn't a problem? 193.252.157.50 (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting of you to make the question a month before the Boston Marathon bombings, claimed to be inspired by exactly that article.

No it is not a problem. Wikipedia is not censored. We also host material on the design and construction of thermonuclear weapons. Wikipedia is however not a how-to guide. This article is not about pressure cooker bombs, but about a magazine. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No because this magazine is a propaganda hoax relayed by the mainstream media like the weapons of mass destructions in Iraq or the incubators in Kuwait you know ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoufiGroto (talk • contribs) 20:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This is as much of a hoax as Mein Kampf --------User:DanTD (talk)

Anybody can read the PDF and see that this Inspire magazine is a stupid joke. the “Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom” article and the usage of the word “terrorist” as a form of self reference. BoufiGroto (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

“Inspire magazine” is not an authentic production of AQAP

This magazine is a fake take a look on this link: http://publicintelligence.net/al-qaeda-magazine-is-cupcake-recipe-book/

from the link:

In addition to these technical reasons for doubting the authenticity of “Inspire” magazine, other authors have also noted a number of obvious reasons for doubt:

The magazine contains statements from Bin Laden and Zawahiri, who are both “extremely secretive and issue statements rarely and directly to the media. It would be unusual for them to write for a third-party publication, especially one put out by the Yemen-based AQAP, with which they have little or no direct ties.

The magazine’s general tone and use of the English language is either clumsy or purposely intending self-parody. For example, the “Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom” article and the usage of the word “terrorist” as a form of self reference. Gregg Carlstrom, a reporter for Al Jazeera noted that the logo used in the document is not the same as Al-Malahem’s normal logo.Jihadi forums openly claim that the magazine is fake and a construction of the “apostate hypocrit dogs” (sic)

BoufiGroto (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Amazing how one of the websites that tracks back to this is Stormfront.org. -------User:DanTD (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes one of the tracks is "stormfront" but it does not mean that the link I posted above made an apology of nazism. What is stated about the Inspire magazine on the link is correct you can check in the PDF of Inspire avaible in the article BoufiGroto (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Your source is 3 years old. A lot of issues have been published and a lot has emerged about Inspire since then. The statements of Bin Ladin and Zawahiri weren't written specifically for Inspire but are republished quuotes. The editor was a Pakistani-American named Samir Khan who was subsequently killed by an American drone strike in Yemen. As per the article, the possesion of the magazine is a crime in several countries, presumably the defence that the magazine is not real was not put before the courts. It is also not unheard of for Jihadists to ironically (or otherwise) refer to themselves as terrorists, Younes Tsouli for example.Gazkthul (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

So Samir Khan republished quotes by OBL and Zawahiri. That doesn't mean it's fake. Neither does the fact that Khan is dead. Norman Rockwell has been dead since 1978, but that doesn't mean there aren't old fogies who remember his work in The Saturday Evening Post. -------User:DanTD (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This article raise more questions about the authenticity of this so-called al-Qaeda magazine: http://publicintelligence.net/does-anyone-take-these-al-qaeda-magazines-seriously/ --Zequebe (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Mirror of Inspiry Magazine and Other Sources

Content is public domain as per primary authoritative source.

[LINKS REMOVED]

And a variety of mirrors.

If it's at the Internet Archive, that settles the matter -- it's in public domain. The Internet Archive is supported in part by major corporations, they have a strong policy of following copyright laws, and they have copyright lawyers to enforce it. The Internet Archive is not a spam site. --Nbauman (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That's total nonsense. The Internet Archive just copies a bunch of stuff. It does not alter the copyright status. Copyright content from my website can be found in the Internet Archive. Nobody ever contacted me to secure copyrights. Jehochman ^Talk 11:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

authorative party says public domain

I strongly dissuade you from making false claims of copyright, Inspire Magazine is public domain.

Can you provide evidence of that? I can't really just take your word for it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

yes. call them yourself.

[LINKS to MIRRORS REMOVED]

You'll have to be more specific, who released it into the public domain? Where can I find clear evidence of who the original copyright holder was and that they released it as PD? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, prior to Al-Aulaqi's death, contact was made to the university in Saana, and directly with the editor (both now deceased) to verify the appropriateness to mirror their publication and the correct form for citation in journal publications. Al-Aulaqi indicated that the content of the magazines shall be openly distributed and is public domain. On the release date of #10, mirror sponsor received a message from current editor and distributor indicating availability of #10 and requesting open distribution. The majority of their content is released initially via various forum sites due to infrastructure failures, posted to archive.org, and sent to various mirrors for public redistribution, directly from the source producer. There is public logs of exactly this announcement process from the originator.

I think you may be misunderstanding copyright law. Just because content is posted and is publicly available on the internet does not meant that it is no longer under copyright. If you have links that show the material has been released under license or into public domain, please post them here, as the two links above do not back up what you are saying. -- Dianna (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer?

I'm not a lawyer, but I've discussed this many times with copyright lawyers. The author can release the work into public domain by saying so in writing. There's no one specific formula. All the author has to say is make it clear that he wants to release it into public domain. Saying, "I release this work to public domain" or something similar would be sufficient. There's no need to use a Creative Commons formula. People were putting work into public domain long before Creative Commons was created. I read some of those issues, and they called it "Open Source Jihad." I think that clearly releases it into the public domain. Furthermore, there is discussion in the article from WP:RS about how the authors wanted it to be freely distributed. Their distribution model was free copying. And it's on the Internet Archive. Wikipedia links to the Internet Archive regularly. --Nbauman (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 May 2013

reference 44 wrong URI Remove extra slash at the end. Correct URI: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-16/melbourne-man-stands-trial-over-terrorism-magazines/4633060 212.170.201.56 (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Dianna (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Website url?

Normally, in articles about magazines using {{Infobox magazine}} as this one does, the url is given for the "website" parameter. Here, it is conspicuously absent. Given the subject's prominence in news media coverage, this begs the question: Why? In looking at this Talk page for a possible answer, there appears to be no satisfactory explanation. Notwithstanding some past discussion here of questionable provenance, censorship, copyright concerns, etc., omission of the magazine's url from the Wikipedia article about it needs better justification than that.  JGHowes  ^talk 00:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi JGH. I do understand your question, and where you are coming from, for the most part. But are you suggesting that it is required? And if it is not required, why would you assert that a "justification" is "needed" for something that is not mandatory? And would there be any circumstances at all under which you believe that we might not include items that are optional, that contain how-to instructions as to how to commit a crime? Let's say the crime were pedophilia, or rape, or mutilation of a hostage -- and your close family members had been subjected to such a crime at the hands of someone who accessed it by clicking through a link at wikipedia to a how-to page. Might that impact your view? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We're not going to link to this magazine's website or mirrors, ever. Wikipedia is not going to be used to promote criminal activity. Jehochman ^Talk 17:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:EL: "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article."

These links are directly relevant to the article. That is the justification for linking. In order to understand the subject of this article, you have to read the primary documents. Would you write a college paper without reading the primary documents?

As I noted above, there is an article in Science magazine, 26 April 2013, "Human subjects protection and research in terrorism and conflict," which explains why it's so important to study terrorism using sources of the terrorists themselves. "People have studied root causes, group behavior, and different approaches to counter such acts. Some of the best cases involved direct interaction with current or former terrorists, producing important results that, for example, replaced caricatures of terrorists as pathological killers with nuanced models of what drives individuals to join such groups and even sacrifice themselves intentionally for a cause."

That is why it is so important to study primary sources of terrorist ideas, and in this case, to link to the actual terrorist documents. It's impossible for someone to understand what terrorists are like or why they act as they do if he doesn't read the actual writings of terrorists. By deleting these links, you're actually making it more difficult to fight terrorism, according to these Science authors who I think are correct.

I read a couple of the issues, and while I don't sympathize or support their goals, I understand them much better.

When you read the issues, you find out that, as the Science article said, they're not the caricature of terrorists as pathological killers. They do have reasonable complaints about US policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel, for example. This is what you almost always find out when you get both sides of any story.

If you prevent Wikipedia's audience from reading these documents that are necessary for understanding the terrorists, you are contributing to ignorance about terrorism, and preventing us from figuring out effective actions against terrorism, and in that sense you're the one who is promoting terrorism. --Nbauman (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The language you quoted makes it seem completely non-mandatory. It says "can be helpful". And it also says that such ELs should be meritable. The merits here suggest to me, for the reasons stated above, that we are better off not linking to a how-to instruction list for creating the sort of bomb that was used in Boston. I see the merits of not doing that as outweighing the assistance that linking to such how-to bomb-making instructions would help Nbauman better understand terrorists. I don't see our choosing, on the merits, to not link to how-to-bomb instructions as promoting terrorism, which you suggest. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Anybody who wants to do serious academic research about terrorists can certainly find the relevant sites without the help of the English language Wikipedia. We don't need to provide a signpost for mentally unstable people to help them find bomb-making instructions. Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Anybody who wants to do serious academic research about anything can find relevant sites without the help of Wikipedia. You've given an argument for arbitrarily censoring anything you don't like.

Where in the Wikipedia guidelines is there any language that says we should eliminate content or links from Wikipedia because someone believes it will help mentally unstable people find bomb-making instructions? --Nbauman (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Use common sense. Nobody has yet felt the need to codify Wikipedia:Don't link to bomb-making instructions because everybody but the most hardcore fool understands this idea. Jehochman ^Talk 20:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem obvious to me and we do have a rule called WP:ETIQUETTE which would discourage you from calling someone who disagrees with you a "hardcore fool".

I don't think we have to censor bomb-making instructions from Wikipedia since even better instructions are easily available on the Internet with a Google search for titles like the following:

TM 31-210 Department of the Army Technical Manual IMPROVISED MUNITIONS HANDBOOK

FM 3-34.214 (FM 5-250) EXPLOSIVES AND DEMOLITIONS July 2007

--Nbauman (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What's really uncivil is somebody who comes here right after the Boston bombings and advocating relentlessly for links to the instruction manual that was used (hence increasing the risk that there might be further incidents). That, dear sir, is a hell of a lot more offensive than me calling you a fool, which you most certainly are. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:ETIQUETTE which you are flagrantly violating, since your repeated abuses are enough to get you banned by from Wikipedia. Wiki Talk is not the kind of discussion board where "you're a fool" is considered a clever, useful or acceptable dialog.

You should also read WP:CENSOR. Your objection to this link is that you personally find it offensive, because it reminds you of the Boston bombing. As WP:CENSOR says, the fact that you or anyone else finds it offensive is not a reason for deleting something from Wikipedia. And it doesn't follow logically that because you or anyone else finds it offensive, we should delete references to it.

As I already said, the experts I cited think the appropriate response to terrorism is to find out what motivates the terrorists and what they're thinking, so that we can stop it again. You are demanding that we remain ignorant of terrorism. Ignorance is what got us into this situation.

If essays are in order, then you should read WP:OPPONENT. --Nbauman (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, write for the opponent all you like. Just don't link to his bomb-making or poison-making instructions. This is where common sense trumps ordinary procedures. We don't want to provide search engine optimization, or help in any way to further the spread of these materials to lone wolf attackers or mentally unstable people who might take up the cause on a whim. I know a determined attacker can find the materials, but why help expand the reach? Jehochman ^Talk 11:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Nbauman -- I expect that by now you've had a chance to read the comments by others not just here by at the noticeboard discussion that you engaged in. You lack consensus support for your effort to have wp list links here to bomb-making instructions. I suggest you drop the stick.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No. What happened is that some people agree with me and some people don't. The people who don't have given several reasons, none of which hold up:

1. Inspire is illegal in the UK and might be illegal in the US.

Actually, lawyers quoted in WP:RS say that it is legal, under the First Amendment, to create Inspire and distribute it, anywhere in the US. Wikipedia follows Florida law.

2. Inspire is copyrighted, and linking to a site containing the issues is a copyright violation.

Actually, according to the WP:RS in this article itself, Inspire uses the method of free distribution as its marketing method, and they not only give permission but encourage web sites to copy them. The Internet Archive, which is not a pirate site but instead has copyright lawyers to make sure it follows copyright laws, has a set.

3. You find it offensive to post a link to a terrorist site after the Boston Marathon bombing.

So what? Under WP:CENSOR, which is a guideline and must be followed, you can't delete material simply because you don't like it. We already publish links to offensive material like Mein Kampf.

4. If we publish a link to bomb-making material, that will encourage people to commit terrorist acts.

Wikipedia already has links to sites like Paladin Press that provide even more detailed instructions on bomb-making and other deadly weapons. Anyone who wants to make a bomb can get much better instructions with a Google search for "TM 31-210 Department of the Army Technical Manual IMPROVISED MUNITIONS HANDBOOK".

4 bad reasons don't add up to 1 good reason.

OTOH, there are reasons why linking to it meets WP:EL that you haven't responded to:

1. Most importantly, the terrorist researchers in the Science article I cited say that, if you want to stop terrorists, it's important to see the actual words of terrorists in order to understand their motivations. This is one important reason why people should be allowed to read actual terrorist documents, not trust second-hand and third-had assertions about what they say. That meets the WP:EL criteria of being helpful to the reader. If these researchers are correct, then by censoring this material, you're the one who's promoting terrorism, because you're promoting ignorance about their motivations.

In a nutshell, deleting the links violates several Wikipedia rules, starting with WP:CENSOR. --Nbauman (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Nbauman, and feel that Jehochman is being needlessly hostile, both with words and edits. Coolgamer (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to fight terrorism, so that's not cause to include a link; Wikipedia is not here to promote a crusade against terrorism. WP:CENSOR does not apply; merely being potentially offensive in some way does not mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. Despite the previous discussions on this link, you keep maintaining that the magazine has "free distribution", but that's far too generic a term to be actually useful. It is CC-BY-SA? Is it public domain? The magazine itself says absolutely nothing of the sort, and that's the kind of thing that needs to be crystal clear in black and white, and that hasn't been shown despite multiple requests for some evidence of that. I would say discuss it at WP:ELN, but that's already been done, and consensus was against including the links. - SudoGhost 23:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Nbauman -- From my reading of the noticeboard discussion and the discussion here, together, you lack consensus support for your effort to have wp list links here to bomb-making instructions. You dislike the reasons, including common sense -- somehow, you weren't careful enough I see to note all the reasons. And I recognize that is impressive that you pursue your effort to link to bomb-making instructions with such vigor. But if you think you have consensus support in those comments, I disagree with you.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Wikipedia's purpose is to convey the facts. What are we supposed to be, the poor censored inferior cousin even of Google? Policy is explicitly against censorship. Archive.org should be a brother-in-arms to Wikipedia, and that's the external link Jehochman is taking out. And then... there's this absurd irrelevancy about the Boston Marathon bombings. You know what I remember about our coverage of that article? I remember a bunch of dumbshit "ethicists" insisting it was wrong for us to include the images of the bombers released by the FBI! Until after they'd been caught, of course! That's the quality of crystal ball these people want to use to rule over us and what we're allowed to read. The truth is, anybody in the countries most of the attackers will come from will have no problem finding this material. For the typical Wikipedia audience in Western countries to be kept away from reading source links accomplishes nothing but our own ignorance, and that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• I hear your opinion. I don't agree with it, as to this article. Though I think you're point about the images of the bombers is a valid one, if that was an issue (don't frankly recall). Best. Epeefleche (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I made past comments on this at [1]; the original discussion was archived to [2]. Wnt (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the website? If there is a website URL that can be verified to be authentic, I will start a proposal and list it as a RfC. Int21h (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the reverts is [3]. But I don't know if that's all of it, or if these are the most relevant links. Wnt (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-RS; publicintelligence.net

Per the conversation here, please do not add the indicated url to this article again. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Example of the magazine

We had an example of the magazine. Now it's gone. Why is it not appropriate? --Netpi (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The links is not appropriate for a variety of reasons but the simplest to understand is contributory copyright infringement. Wikipedia could link to a magazine's official website if it had one but we can't link to mirrors that may have copied the mag without permission. Second Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Third Wikipedia is not a means of distributing an online mag. Fourth, see my comments above about bomb-making and terrorism. Jehochman ^Talk 00:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Enough reasons to hide the link I posted from the discussion. This is unusual and a proscribed actions for discussions. How can other users form an opinion? --Netpi (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there an official website for this magazine? Logically that would be the thing to link to and it's what we do for all mags. I don't think we suou treat this one differently. I'm reconsidering some of my other objections to linking to that site. I don't think we can link to mirrors though especially because we don't know their copyright status. Do you have a reliable source that says where to find official.copies? Also we probably don't want to link to a PDF. It's better to link to HTML. Jehochman ^Talk 02:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree w/Jehochman here. Epeefleche (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Two editors is not consensus. As you can see in the discussion above, many editors believe we should have links, which we keep providing. You are engaging in WP:CENSOR. --Nbauman (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No, if you find an official website we could link it as we do for every other magazine. We cannot link to dubious sites, mirrors or similar. Wikipedia is not here to help terrorists distribute their hate speech and spread their attacks. Go start a wider community discussion or visit WP:EL/N if you want other opinions. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many links to the Internet Archive, Google Books, academic archives, etc., especially for discontinued newspapers and magazines.

Please cite a Wikipedia guideline that we only link to official websites. --Nbauman (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:EL records many but not all practices. An archive of an official site is fine if the official site is gone. Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

@Jehochman: By your action, unregistered editors have been blocked from editing this talk page since June 6, 2013 [4]. The reason given is "Persistent violations of WP:LINKVIO, IP editors socking". I don't agree there is a policy-based reason to keep the links out, and find it highly improper for you to claim consensus to keep the link out while preventing the IP editors who posted the link from using the talk page to have a say in the matter. And I have no idea at all how a purely IP editor can possibly "sock"! (If you think someone with an account is logging out to vote twice, that's a matter for SPI) Recently I started a discussion at [5] and felt there was support for generally not protecting talk pages long-term, and this is a prime example. Wnt (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the protection. Clearly this has been a problematic magnet for this inappropriate editing. No one editor can sock -- but an IP of course can be a puppet or a master ... I don't understand the intellectual confusion is comprehending that. Epeefleche (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If someone's IP changes, that isn't socking unless he pretends to be two people casting two separate votes. Otherwise it's just how it works. Wnt (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the request for unsemiprotection, in light of the presumption against long-term semiprotection unless a need for it can be shown. In this instance, however, I conclude that both the article and its talkpage should remain in their current state. Accordingly, the request is denied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: - I'm inferring from the above that you're denying this on Jehochman's behalf? Wnt (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wnt -- why would you "infer" that? He doesn't say that. I would assume to the contrary that, as with an unblock request, one admin can review a request made vis-a-vis another admin's action. Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, my understanding of the procedure is that Jehochman gets the first look at it, then it's up to WP:UNPROTECT. Wnt (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll wait for Jehochman to comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that Newyorkbrad has made a reasonable decision. I have not seen anything to suggest that the long term problems on this page from multiple unconfirmed editors would not immediately resume. The topic area remains a battleground as much now as then. Jehochman ^Talk 15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV in Inspire_(magazine)#United_Kingdom

This section is sorta ridiculous. It seems to imply that possession of the magazine is somehow illegal in the UK. The UK is not some kind of back water police state. People don't get arrested for possession of a magazine. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Inspire (magazine). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130521190648/http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/np/wolverhampton/news/newsitem.asp?id=4066 to http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/np/wolverhampton/news/newsitem.asp?id=4066

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links

I have removed various external links that likely point to copyright violations. We should not link to content that violates copyright, and I see no indication that the various uploaders own the copyright to the magazine. Huon (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Did it also have something to do with this story in The Daily Mail, or just weird timing? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

See the thread at Talk:2017_Barcelona_attack#Daily_Mail_article. Of course, life is full of coincidences.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inspire (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/20101016203533/http://adl.org/main_Terrorism/al_qaeda_english_magazine.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/al_qaeda_english_magazine.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) 07:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect and unrelated text in section 5

In section 5 "open-source jihad" the article claims the 2011 Frankfurt Airport Shootings were inspired by false footage produced by Al-Quaeda.

"Open source jihad" allowed for an emotional response to events and validation in smaller, less spectacular attacks, such as Arid Uka's attack on American servicemen in Germany on March 2, 2011. Uka had no training except from the Internet, where he saw a fake video of American servicemen raping a girl. Though the video was falsified al-Qaeda propaganda, it was meant to elicit strong responses from their followers.

2 things.

1. This "faked" footage was from an American war film Redacted in which they filmed re-enactment footage. That footage was what Arid Uka saw and believed it to be real footage. The film was based on the Mahmudiyah rape and killings. It was not produced by Al-Quaeda, it was produced by American filmmaker Brian De Palma, and the events depicted did occur. Calling it falsified al-Queda propaganda is not accurate and the editor who did so is either very misinformed or would appear to be acting in bad faith.
2. This paragraph has nothing to do with the topic, which is that Open-Source Jihad is a theme of Inspire Magazine. I propose we either remove the last paragraph or at the very least correct the blatant misinformation.

Its choosday innit (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit: I found what I believe to be the first addition of this section here by user:Nurg in October 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=453341811 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Its choosday innit (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)