Talk:Tahrir al-Sham

NOTE

DO NOT EDIT THE PAGE WITHOUT CREDIBLE INFORMATION. NEWS OUTLETS RECOMMENDED.

Firstly, and I wish to make this clear, if you're biased, you have no purpose in editing anything here, or on this site in general, please avoid Biased viewpoints on this group, affiliates, enemies, ETC. This page shall undergo many changes in the upcoming weeks as of the 30/1/2017 as this particular group grows and more knowledge is found out about it. do not take all the information found on here as absolute fact until the group is well established.Arguments font belong here and should not reflect the professionalism of the Article itself.

Official Twitter pages are NOT recommended for use in Wikipedia as they promote a POV in favor of the organization. News sites are preferred. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

EDITING OPPONENTS

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.

MEMBER GROUPS Although you are not advised to use Twitter as reference, for items such as official Documents and adding / removing member groups, you will be strongly advised to use Twitter, as that is the source of social media the group uses to publish documents & the acceptance of new member-groups — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiyatTahrirAlShaam (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources for Member Groups

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.

• Several Western-backed groups join forces with Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria

LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist group

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)

I think that most, if not all of the states that designated al-Nusra Front consider this group to be a terrorist organization. Both Russia and the United States certainly do. However, I have yet to find an article detailing any country adding new terrorist designations specifically for this new al-Qaeda re-brand. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:20, 23 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)

Agree with LightandDark2000. This was discussed extensively in the past, and most editors agreed. HTS is practically still Nusra, just changed their name and flag. As for their relation to Al Qaeda, Nusra's connection to them was established without a doubt (and they were designated terrorists) and at the moment we have only HTS's word that they are not connected to AQ anymore, which isn't really reliable. EkoGraf (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Until this article can gain some degree of internal consistency, it shouldn't in the header declare that HTS is a "terrorist group". You're just going to confuse readers when the header says they're a terrorist group and then later on it says that they're not officially recognized as a terrorist group.

Note that I'm not weighing in either way on how you should fix this contradiction. But it does need to be fixed. -- 213.176.153.106 (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The relationship with al Qaeda has changed over the past year, with al Qaeda figures like Zawahiri criticising HTS, and HTS arresting some al Qaeda members. This page will need to be updated to reflect recent events. This article (from Feb 2018) by Charles Lister could be a useful source: https://ctc.usma.edu/al-qaida-lost-control-syrian-affiliate-inside-story Woood (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Is Great Britain really an opponent of the largest rebel group?

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)

See above discussion. HTS is practically still Nusra, just changed their name and flag. And the UK designated Nusra as terrorists in July 2013. EkoGraf (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly, it is an alliance of rebel groups of which former Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (even earlier, Jabhat Al-Nusra) is the largest. According to this article and also sources I've been able to find in google only like ~60% of fighters of this alliance came directly from Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and almost all top positions in this alliance are filled with Ahrar al-Sham defectors also it has swallowed up several rebel factions which were supported by the UK through measures I mentioned before and those factions are now a part of this rebel alliance, therefore the British attitude towards these rebel factions is no longer clear. Quite similar situation with Ahrar al-Sham and various smaller rebel groups which joined it in its fight for control over Greater Idlib. GroundlessAir (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Its not an alliance of multiple groups. Its one group/organisation with which those other groups merged with. All those other groups have now become defunct but HTS is still active. EkoGraf (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

HTS isn't really a mainstream rebel force (we're talking about "moderate rebels" here). They adhere to al-Nusra's jihadist ideologies and goals, and al-Julani, al-Nusra's head, is the military chief of this organization (some say that he's the real power behind the throne). HTS actually a single merger product that still functions as al-Qaeda's Syrian arm, so they are still a terrorist organization. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Jaysh al-Farouq

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)

Yes, Jaysh al-Farouq was most likely a remnant of the original Farouq Brigades, they even have nearly identical logos. The central organization of the Farouq Brigades largely dissolved in 2014, but some members continue to use its name while others operate under other names. Besides the Farouq Army, there was also the Omar al-Farouq Brigade, which was the group formerly led by the infamous Abu Sakkar. He was NOT part of the original Farouq Brigades at the time of the incident. The section on him specifically said that "Abu Sakkar appears to be a commander of the "Independent Omar al-Farouq Brigade". The BBC called it an offshoot or sub-unit of the Farouq Brigades, saying that 'the Farouq Brigade appears to be actually a complex of sub-units with a tangled pedigree.' Human Rights Watch said 'It is not known whether the Independent Omar al-Farouq Brigade operates within the command structure of the Free Syrian Army'." Editor abcdef (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

On that topic, just how organized was Jaysh al-Farouq? I know that the Farouq Brigades had significantly declined by 2015, but apparently, Jaysh al-Farouq still had somewhat of a large influence within its own sphere, and it was able to contribute enough fighters for HTS to decisively eclipse Ahrar al-Sham. (This means that Jaysh al-Farouq probably had several thousand fighters at the time of its dissolution into HTS, but I still don't know just how strong they were just prior to the merger.) I estimate that they may have had around 6,000–10,000 fighters around the time of the merger, but I don't have a recent source to provide any insight into this. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The claim that the accession Jaysh al-Farouq into HTS have contributed to HTS's numerical superiority over Ahrar al-Sham is only an opinion by the authors al-Masdar News. The claim has not appeared in the accession statement the article was based on. Regardless, Jaysh al-Farouq still appeared to be a small group few people even heard of, and 6,000-10,000 fighters is extremely unlikely. That would make it the 4th largest rebel group in Syria which is just as unlikely. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The group started out with 3,000+ fighters. Also, there are multiple groups in Syria which number around 10,000, so that number wouldn't be too rare (though it would place it among the top 5 or 6). LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the 10,000 number is just a personal speculation. There is no source to verify this number. There is no source that estimates Jaysh al-Farouq's strength at all, actually. It's highly unlikely that this little-known group has 10,000+ fighters but I have no source for this as well. It's best to just leave out its strength for now. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Terror attacks section

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)

Military unit

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)

Size

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)

As no-one has commented, I will go ahead and make the change.BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it still part of AQ?

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)

Agree. Maybe change "covertly" to "disputed"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. This is even more true today (a year and a half after the initial comment). We have a consensus. I will edit the article. Tradedia^talk 23:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The section about attacks is awfully written

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)

Website

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)

Allies

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

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)

Claims they killed the leader of ISIS in July/August 2023

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/isis-leader-killed-syria-abu-al-hussein-al-husseini-al-qurayshi-rcna98020

©Geni (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Foreign support

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)

I mean, ceasefire and joint patrol doesn't mean support, isn't it? https://npasyria.com/en/105112/ Mavreju (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Please don't keep reverting, there are literally 2 other Talk discussions which you ignore and keep adding Turkey as ally. Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, you AGAIN provide unsourced POV edits, and that's constantly. This is the fourth article, all relating to Turkey, that you keep disrupting with unsourced opinions. When will you understand that that's not how Wikipedia works? There are multiple sources confirming Turkey is allied and yet you want us to agree to an absurdly undefined "sometimes" which is also unsourced on top of that?

POV edits are not welcome. Sourced edits are. TzCher (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? HTS clashes with SNA and when it happens Turkey sides with SNA.

Plus Turkey designates HTS as terrorist organization Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think that's the case, the proper course of action is to source these opinions with credible sources, present them here on the Talk page and only after consensus has been reached, update the article. Not unilaterally decide to change it based on your opinion, and on top of that, an unsourced opinion.

Look at your Contributions page. In the last 2 months you don't have ONE credible addition to Wikipedia that has not been reverted. Do it correctly or you will simply never add anything of value to the encyclopedia. TzCher (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You are right, thank you very much. I appreciate Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I will now edit it with sources.

And actually it was always "sometimes", Shadowwarrior8 is the one changing without consensus in the Talk page. You can check past edits. Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)