This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tahrir al-Sham 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Tahrir al-Sham, 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.
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
DO NOT EDIT THE PAGE WITHOUT CREDIBLE INFORMATION. NEWS OUTLETS RECOMMENDED.
This is extremely important, please make sure to provide references for more obscure opponents as I have noticed certain groups that have been shown/stated as opponents aren't officially stated as opponents under the media outlet which the group controls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiyatTahrirAlShaam ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
This kind of false advice from an editor with a probable
COI has led to a ton of unverified claims in the article, among other problems. Please follow the
official
guidelines.
|
---|
|
I have linked a good source for the member groups of Tahrir al-Sham. Many of the groups listed are present in the source, so please read through it and replace or add the new reference to the listed groups on the main article.
LightandDark2000 ( talk) 02:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Editor abcdef, Rajmaan, and LightandDark2000: Have you got sources about which states officially consider Tahrir al-Sham as terrorist organization ? Regards. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 10:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Let me get this straight for you. Tahrir al Sham has no real relation with Al Qaeda, and it is not a rebrand, as it clearly stated. So, That is not a valid claim. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ItharTheSyrianArchiver101 (
talk •
contribs)
21:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am simply curious why Great Britain is on Tahrir al-Sham opponents list? There does not seem to be any source supporting this claim. I would argue to the contrary, the British government actively supported (and quite likely still supports) armed groups which are now a part of this alliance most notably via Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. UK has provided strategic communications, diplomatic support, financial support, non-lethal and lethal supplies to them, I can't find any sources of UK ever confronting or striking this group, in contrary to for example to US, which has labeled it a terrorist organisation and carried out a few airstrikes as well as halted supplies of weaponry and payment of wages to these rebel fighters.
If somebody has a source about any sort of friction in relations between United Kingdom and Tahrir al-Sham, I would like to see it added, otherwise United Kingdom should be removed from its list of opponents until such a source appears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GroundlessAir ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I would like more information about this group. Apparently, they were a former FSA-affiliated group that merged into HTS on 21 March, which boosted HTS's fighter strength well beyond 31,000 (possibly up to 40,000), which effectively allowed them to eclipse Ahrar al-Sham. Is Jaysh al-Farouq related to the Farouq Brigades in any way, or are they the same group? I know that Jaysh al-Farouq was active in the Idlib Province and in Northern Hama. Given the significance of this development, I would like someone to help uncover exactly what that group used to be, and provide some more information on them. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 03:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The attacks listed as terror attacks are mainly attacks on military targets which won't be counted as terrorist attacks by any sane person. I suggest that a editor remove them (literally all of the attacks listed were targetted at military posts). Also, calling the group a terrorist group is also debatable. Only one state is known for designating them as a terror organization.
Interestingly, PKK is designated as a terror organization by Turkey but it seems Wikipedia gives more priority to claims by the US than Turkey! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SakibArifin ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia-sanctioned definitions, Tahrir al-Sham is not a military unit/formation because is not supported even by a self-declared State or State-like polity and it appears lacking military-like hierarchy and/or organization. Unless they claim a source of sanction from a State (even if self-declared or state-like polity) I think it should be removed from any association with proper military organizations. Please note that it is an entirely different question from the terrorist-or-not debate.-- Mach1988 ( talk) 13:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The article says that "On 30 January [2017], it was reported that there were around 31,000 fighters in Tahrir al-Sham" source: Asharq Al-Awsat. This seems roughly plausible if the previous article was right in giving Jabhat al-Nusra's force as 20,000 and Nour al-Din al-Zenki as 7,000. However, the infobox gives 50,000 fighters, which means that it has nearly doubled in size in seven months through defections from other groups. The first source given for the 50,000 is Al-Masdar News [1], which is not the most reliable of sources, an article from May which says that with the defection of the "Abu Omarah Regiment" from the Fatah Halab operations room, "HTS now boasts a fighting force of some 50,000 militants". I can't get much on Abu Omarah (it seems it was in the Levant Front then Ahrar Al-Sham previously) but given it is not that prominent it seems hard to believe it has a fighting force close to al-Zenki, for example.
The second and third footnote for the 50,000 claim are duplicates, the article from January in Asharq Al-Awsat [2], giving the 31,000 figure (the same source used in the text), which appears to come from "military sources".
Since then, Nour al-Din al-Zenki has pulled out, although SouthFront (not a reliable source for controversial claims) asserts, citing "opposition sources", that "Desert Sector"(?), "which has more than 7000 fighters, is the largest group that defected from Ahrar al-Sham and joined HTS", although I don't know if that number is at all plausible given that would be over a third of Ahrar al-Sham's fighters.
Can anyone shed any more light on this? My proposal would be to change the 50,000 to ca.31,000, or perhaps 30-50,000, pending better estimates. If that happens, it might be other articles, e.g. American-led intervention in Syria and Al-Qaeda, which give the same figure (based on the same single source) will need to be changed too. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
According to these refs: [3], [4], [5] and [6] AQ does not consider HTS to be part of it. Plus, you have Zawahiri himself rejecting HTS here [7]. There has been another group formed called the Guardians of Religion Organization with various former Nusra members which is still loyal to AQ. It seems misleading to state that HTS is still allied with AQ in the infobox. David O. Johnson ( talk)
It's a jumble of citations and repeated sentences, no paragraphs and poor grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTime05 ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Can "Ibaa News Agency" https://ebaa.news/ be considered HTS' website? Even though it doesn't have the name (HTS) explicit, I know it's linked with it, so, should it be put on the page's Infobox? Alexiscoutinho ( talk) 02:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is Turkey listed as an ally when all 3 noted references suggest the opposite? Came here to learn what HTS was and found that part confusing. 2600:1700:9520:3B00:69DA:AE41:5FC4:AD7C ( talk) 03:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Turkey is categorised both as an ally of this group with a note "(sometimes")" and an opponent with the same note while this group is officially designated as a terrorist organisation by Turkey. I propose deleting the "ally" part. E3.akpinar ( talk) 11:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
©Geni ( talk) 03:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
It is quite obvious that Turkey is militarily supporting HTS since the start of the May 2020 ceasefire deal.
Turkish troops are present in numerous outposts at the borders of HTS controlled territories and co-ordinate with HTS militia. Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 16:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tahrir al-Sham 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Tahrir al-Sham, 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.
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
DO NOT EDIT THE PAGE WITHOUT CREDIBLE INFORMATION. NEWS OUTLETS RECOMMENDED.
This is extremely important, please make sure to provide references for more obscure opponents as I have noticed certain groups that have been shown/stated as opponents aren't officially stated as opponents under the media outlet which the group controls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiyatTahrirAlShaam ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
This kind of false advice from an editor with a probable
COI has led to a ton of unverified claims in the article, among other problems. Please follow the
official
guidelines.
|
---|
|
I have linked a good source for the member groups of Tahrir al-Sham. Many of the groups listed are present in the source, so please read through it and replace or add the new reference to the listed groups on the main article.
LightandDark2000 ( talk) 02:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Editor abcdef, Rajmaan, and LightandDark2000: Have you got sources about which states officially consider Tahrir al-Sham as terrorist organization ? Regards. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 10:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Let me get this straight for you. Tahrir al Sham has no real relation with Al Qaeda, and it is not a rebrand, as it clearly stated. So, That is not a valid claim. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ItharTheSyrianArchiver101 (
talk •
contribs)
21:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am simply curious why Great Britain is on Tahrir al-Sham opponents list? There does not seem to be any source supporting this claim. I would argue to the contrary, the British government actively supported (and quite likely still supports) armed groups which are now a part of this alliance most notably via Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. UK has provided strategic communications, diplomatic support, financial support, non-lethal and lethal supplies to them, I can't find any sources of UK ever confronting or striking this group, in contrary to for example to US, which has labeled it a terrorist organisation and carried out a few airstrikes as well as halted supplies of weaponry and payment of wages to these rebel fighters.
If somebody has a source about any sort of friction in relations between United Kingdom and Tahrir al-Sham, I would like to see it added, otherwise United Kingdom should be removed from its list of opponents until such a source appears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GroundlessAir ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I would like more information about this group. Apparently, they were a former FSA-affiliated group that merged into HTS on 21 March, which boosted HTS's fighter strength well beyond 31,000 (possibly up to 40,000), which effectively allowed them to eclipse Ahrar al-Sham. Is Jaysh al-Farouq related to the Farouq Brigades in any way, or are they the same group? I know that Jaysh al-Farouq was active in the Idlib Province and in Northern Hama. Given the significance of this development, I would like someone to help uncover exactly what that group used to be, and provide some more information on them. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 03:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The attacks listed as terror attacks are mainly attacks on military targets which won't be counted as terrorist attacks by any sane person. I suggest that a editor remove them (literally all of the attacks listed were targetted at military posts). Also, calling the group a terrorist group is also debatable. Only one state is known for designating them as a terror organization.
Interestingly, PKK is designated as a terror organization by Turkey but it seems Wikipedia gives more priority to claims by the US than Turkey! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SakibArifin ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia-sanctioned definitions, Tahrir al-Sham is not a military unit/formation because is not supported even by a self-declared State or State-like polity and it appears lacking military-like hierarchy and/or organization. Unless they claim a source of sanction from a State (even if self-declared or state-like polity) I think it should be removed from any association with proper military organizations. Please note that it is an entirely different question from the terrorist-or-not debate.-- Mach1988 ( talk) 13:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The article says that "On 30 January [2017], it was reported that there were around 31,000 fighters in Tahrir al-Sham" source: Asharq Al-Awsat. This seems roughly plausible if the previous article was right in giving Jabhat al-Nusra's force as 20,000 and Nour al-Din al-Zenki as 7,000. However, the infobox gives 50,000 fighters, which means that it has nearly doubled in size in seven months through defections from other groups. The first source given for the 50,000 is Al-Masdar News [1], which is not the most reliable of sources, an article from May which says that with the defection of the "Abu Omarah Regiment" from the Fatah Halab operations room, "HTS now boasts a fighting force of some 50,000 militants". I can't get much on Abu Omarah (it seems it was in the Levant Front then Ahrar Al-Sham previously) but given it is not that prominent it seems hard to believe it has a fighting force close to al-Zenki, for example.
The second and third footnote for the 50,000 claim are duplicates, the article from January in Asharq Al-Awsat [2], giving the 31,000 figure (the same source used in the text), which appears to come from "military sources".
Since then, Nour al-Din al-Zenki has pulled out, although SouthFront (not a reliable source for controversial claims) asserts, citing "opposition sources", that "Desert Sector"(?), "which has more than 7000 fighters, is the largest group that defected from Ahrar al-Sham and joined HTS", although I don't know if that number is at all plausible given that would be over a third of Ahrar al-Sham's fighters.
Can anyone shed any more light on this? My proposal would be to change the 50,000 to ca.31,000, or perhaps 30-50,000, pending better estimates. If that happens, it might be other articles, e.g. American-led intervention in Syria and Al-Qaeda, which give the same figure (based on the same single source) will need to be changed too. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
According to these refs: [3], [4], [5] and [6] AQ does not consider HTS to be part of it. Plus, you have Zawahiri himself rejecting HTS here [7]. There has been another group formed called the Guardians of Religion Organization with various former Nusra members which is still loyal to AQ. It seems misleading to state that HTS is still allied with AQ in the infobox. David O. Johnson ( talk)
It's a jumble of citations and repeated sentences, no paragraphs and poor grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTime05 ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Can "Ibaa News Agency" https://ebaa.news/ be considered HTS' website? Even though it doesn't have the name (HTS) explicit, I know it's linked with it, so, should it be put on the page's Infobox? Alexiscoutinho ( talk) 02:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is Turkey listed as an ally when all 3 noted references suggest the opposite? Came here to learn what HTS was and found that part confusing. 2600:1700:9520:3B00:69DA:AE41:5FC4:AD7C ( talk) 03:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Turkey is categorised both as an ally of this group with a note "(sometimes")" and an opponent with the same note while this group is officially designated as a terrorist organisation by Turkey. I propose deleting the "ally" part. E3.akpinar ( talk) 11:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
©Geni ( talk) 03:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
It is quite obvious that Turkey is militarily supporting HTS since the start of the May 2020 ceasefire deal.
Turkish troops are present in numerous outposts at the borders of HTS controlled territories and co-ordinate with HTS militia. Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 16:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)