Talk:Amaq News Agency

Untitled
1. Confusion over what a news agency is- Inedible hulk is insisting that the term 'news agency' can only refer to a wire service that sells news to other outlets whereas the Wikipedia page for 'news agency' if you look at the 'commercial services' section

says:News agencies can be corporations that sell news AND it says: Governments may also control news agencies

it then goes on to list 'major news agencies', many or most of which are not newswires that sell news but have other functions

2. it is not merely an online outlet because it has reporters on the ground operating in iraq and syria as for the source, this fact is already contained in the article where it mentions amaq was the first to provide footage of IS capture of Palmyra taken by its own reporters


 * This outlet neither sells news nor is controlled by a government. It shares the odd video from Iraq or Syria, but so does YouTube. If this doesn't mean YouTube operates out of the Islamic State, or that YouTube isn't an online outlet because input comes from the real world, it doesn't mean it for Amaq. Amaq also "reports" from Afghanistan, America, the Phillipines, France and wherever. Doesn't mean it operates there, just means it has Internet. If you can find out where the bureau (or more likely, ISP) is, that is where it operates. Like Reuters in London, AP in New York or AFP in Paris. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And yes, the list of "Major news agencies" does list a bunch that aren't news agencies, or even claim to be. That's because Wikipedia is fallible, not because CBC News, NBC News or Times of India actually are news agencies. If they were, they'd probably be in List of news agencies. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

1. it is controlled by IS, which functions as a government 2. it does not 'share the odd video', it has consistenly provided video footage from everywhere in iraq and syria 3. I have already explained to you, and it is a fact, that the video released by Amaq is taken by their own reporters and not merely released by them. This is attested to and sourced already in the article. 5. Because of this, describing it as an 'online outlet' is entirely incorrect since it operates in the real world. its editorial board is probably based in raqqa, syria 6. the phrasing 'which operates in territory controlled by the islamic state' is very precise and accurate and is perfectly fine for the article 7. regarding the 'news agency', the self description of amaq is as a news agency, this is the name people use about it, and it fulfills what the general public would understand as a news agency. 8. if you absolutely cannot stand using the word 'news agency' despite that, fine, but at least fix the entirely wrong bit about it being an 'online outlet' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith1122 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you know who controls it or who works for it, you know more than any reliable source I've seen. If you've learned this from one, add the info and source it. If you're guessing, that's no good. Online outlet refers to the outlet. Regardless of input, Amaq doesn't output on paper, radio or television. SITE finds this stuff exclusively online, then sells it to the offline world. Without it, Amaq would never have crossed over.
 * "Probably operates in Raqqa" is not precise or perfectly fine for claiming it definitely does, especially next to citation which doesn't even say "probably". Amaq describes itself as a news agency for the same reason it describes lone wolves everywhere as "soldiers of the Caliphate"; it sounds better. Shall we rename the loons accordingly, in Wikipedia's voice, or does Amaq only count as a reliable source when it suits you? The Times only says it functions "much like an official news agency might in a totalitarian state". It's all a guessing game. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

1. the source is already in the article indicating that it is an IS operation 2. 'online outlet' is entirely an incorrect description because it is more than an online outlet. it creates its own content in addition to putting that content online. 3.I didn't say 'it probably operates in Raqqah', I said it does operate all over Iraq and Syria, which is a fact. Read what I actually said, which was 'its editorial board is probably based in raqqa, syria' ie. the people who control its output are probably in raqqah 4. You shouldn't speak from ignorance and you continue to ignore what I am actually saying. SITE has nothing to do with it. The original content is posted on Amaq channels on Telegram messenger and can be seen by anyone who looks on the channel. Plenty of analysts and journalists follow the Amaq channels on Telegram and get the reports independently of SITE as do IS supporters. you are talking nonsense hereSmith1122 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Times straight-up says "not officially part of the ISIS media apparatus". Says it gets tips from it, and appears to be "basically controlled by the Islamic State but is somewhat removed from the group." And it appears that way because that's how SITE says it sees it. If "The original content is posted on Amaq channels on Telegram messenger" doesn't mean "online outlet" to you, what does "online outlet" mean to you? And which analysts and journalists claim to see it directly? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not "officially" part of IS. That's the whole point of the dispute over the exact extent of its editorial independence. But the article already says it is 'associated with IS' which are your own words. Again, you are just ignoring the fact that is has reporters in Iraq and Syria. It isn't only an online outlet regardless of how it distributes its stuff. Nobody 'claims' anything:Anyone can go on Telegram messenger and look at the Amaq channel. This is a fact. Smith1122 (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Associated" was User2534's choice here, but I've said the same elsewhere. Way looser than "owned" or "operated", and more verifiable. I think we're just going to have to disagree on most of this, but we can compromise on "online news outlet". What would you rather call it, aside from "news agency"? Just plain "news outlet" would be OK by me, since the article later suggests the online part. Doesn't need to be specified in the first sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

i appreciate your willingness to compromise. the exact wording isn't too important, i just think there has to be something in the primary description that establishes that it is more than an online outfit and also has reporters on the ground in iraq and syria. how about, 'a news outlet with reporters operating in territory controlled by the Islamic State'?Smith1122 (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think, like how "mobile app" and "Telegram account" get across "online outlet" in the body, the bit about the Palmyra scoop gets across the video thing. It's hardly a defining feature, even assuming these are their reporters (the Times only calls them "embedded"). Its bread and butter is reporting in short text statements and infographics on a mish-mash of terror from around the world, per unnamed sources. Palmyra was recaptured by Syria in March, so unless we have examples of "on the ground" stuff from current ISIS ground, saying so in present tense isn't quite right.
 * It's be easier for me to find middle ground with you if you'd explain what you think is an "online outlet"? It doesn't mean content farm, news aggregator or technology journalism, if that's the problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

it released a video from manbij syria of civilians killed by US strikes just yesterday. it is constantly putting out videos. i guess the bit about how it has actual reporters can go in the body of the article if you dont want it in the leadSmith1122 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That was some nasty shit. But aside from the watermark, how do you know who was filming? The people talking to the camera seem to be witnesses, not reporters (though I don't understand Arabic), and the one behind the camera doesn't say anything. Seems something more like CNN's iReport, but I could be wrong. Are there any pictures around of cameras, vans, microphones and the like with Amaq's logo on them? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

So... where is it?
I guess I'm missing something, but I don't see how one would actually access this news agency. I've seen them quoted in other news articles, so I decided to try looking at the source. There doesn't seem to be a URL to them here, and I don't see a thorough description of how one can access them. Is this due to a Wikipedia rule? Esn (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a news agency (see above), it's a social media channel. Not meant to be accessed or visited, just followed and shared. You've probably already seen SITE's collection if you Googled. That's about as close as I think it gets for traditional web and wire surfers.
 * Though there's a URL in a screenshot in this story you may or may not want to put in your address bar. Malware-infected jihadist propaganda is even sketchier than the regular kind, I figure, and didn't bother. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * More URLs and amateur sleuthing in this blog. Which one, if any, is "official" isn't clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I barely understand the 'tech' content above, but the chararacter of Amaq is interesting stuff. Their operation appears to be more limited than many media refs to them suggest. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Strange, cause i'm sure i saw a link to one of their "blogs" a while back, witch in fact was linked at this wiki-page. Why was that link removed? I could find it, but won't make affort to find it cause it's not that important to me. --Mannni (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Amaq logo.svg