Talk:Hay'at 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)

Maybe state clearly that they are successor to both AQ and islamic state former groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.35.204 (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2024 (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)

No, links to terrorist organizations is prohibited, we seen this with I'lam Foundation, Khilafah.is, Al-Hayat Media Center, and Al-Furat Media Center. RowanJ LP (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2024 (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)

Remove the 2023 part about the diplomatic talks with the SDF

It's entirely false. Just a propaganda from Turkey. Syria TV is a news source based in Istanbul (Turkey) and is affiliated with the opposition (Along with The New Arab and Al Araby)

There is literally no other source claiming this. 89.251.46.112 (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Support by Hamas

https://x.com/ragipsoylu/status/1863868767543161113?t=HkOEUC_kDJp40vsa_lCS9g&s=19 2A02:3030:A64:B9F3:C7E1:B23E:E0F7:7A10 (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

talal nasser is never a hamas official 113.210.61.139 (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2024

HTS is supported by the United States. Why is it categorized as an opponent? 113.210.61.139 (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Article does not mention support by US. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It's literally designated as a terrorist group. EgyptianNationalist (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Opponents

The group is not against the United States Changes need to be made.78.172.61.182 (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Flag & Logo

Explanation of the symbolism is needful. To my eye that's not the shahada. kencf0618 (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Flag has the Shahada. Logo says Hayat Tahrir al-Sham Mayouhm (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected. kencf0618 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed article title change

I suggest renaming this article to Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham, since I can't see much evidence of anybody calling it Tahrir al-Sham. It's abbreviation is HTS. ghouston (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Some observations: out of 150 mentions of "Tahrir al-Sham" in the whole article page, 73 are in article body, and 77 are in the references. Out of the 73 body matches, 5 are preceded with some version of (we'll get to that) "Hay'at", whilst of the 77 matches in the references, 62 are preceded by such. As for the various spellings of the romanized organization name, the title of the article's infobox currently disagrees with the article by a lot, showing "Hayʼat Tahrir ash-Sham", and there are "Hayyat"s here and there, so continuity should be established whatever the article title should be. In that regard, consider that "Tahrir al-Sham" without "Hay'at" doesn't appear to declare that its an organization, so it's a little like the RSPCA being referred to as the RPCA, which is insensible. As always the references trump our opinions and currently it appears, at a glance, that we are going very much against their flow. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Move to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham?

Most sources and many articles call Tahrir al-Sham by its full name being Hayat Tahrir al-Sham or its acronym HTS. RowanJ LP (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@RowanJ LP: I was just thinking that this page should be at the full title. Definitely from my (UK) perspective, the full name seems more common in media coverage. The discussions above this on the talk page also seem to show support for this move. I'll boldly move this article to the full title now. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep.[8][9][10][11][12]

These were the first 5 news outlets that came to my mind. All use "Hayat Tahrir al-Sham", except for Sky News, which drops the dash. This move should be obvious. Dieknon (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Current redirects to this article, which are straight variants of the proposed title are Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Hayyat Tahrir al-Sham and Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham. We appear in agreement that the article should be retitled. The current title should remain as a redirect. Can we agree on the new title? WP:TRANSLITERATE and potentially WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS (sub issues of WP:TITLE) apply. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know anything about transliteration from Arabic, but news organisations seem to like "Hayat", while various government bodies and analysts use "Hay'at". ghouston (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

A dirty summary of those relevant guidelines above: it's prefered that we use a common anglicised/romanised version if available (they are), and avoid the apostrophe if possible/reasonable (it is). "Hayat Tahrir al-Sham" seems like the most suitable from all sources to me. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 06:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. ghouston (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2024

Tahrir al-Sham → Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham – Per discussion above on this talk page; appears to be common name in English-language sources. I've already opened a request at contested technical moves page, but have been advised to open a discussion on the article talk page. Would also support a move to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham or Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham if others prefer. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the discussion above, we should avoid the apostrophe and definitely not use an "apostrophe(-like) variant" as you have suggested. Quoting the article titling policy: "various apostrophe(-like) variants (’ ʻ ʾ ʿ ᾿ ῾ ‘ ’ c), should generally not be used in page titles. A common exception is the simple apostrophe character (', same glyph as the single quotation mark) itself (e.g. Anthony d'Offay), which should, however, be used sparingly (e.g. Quran instead of Qur'an...)". Since "Hayat.." is widely used by English sources, there seems little reason to not omit the apostrophe. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support: Most Media Outlets speak of the complete full name and the abbreviation is HTS, so a move would more sense for organizing Wikipedia. DerEchteJoan (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support is the most used name by sources LefterDalaka (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@DerEchteJoan and LefterDalaka: please make clear if you support the exact proposed title, with the apostrophe-like variant our article titling policy explicitly recommends we don't use in article titles, or if you support moving the article to a more suitable title? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend the simple apostrophe character. LefterDalaka (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I do support the one with the Apostrophy DerEchteJoan (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The "simple apostrophe" or the one used in the proposed new title? They are importantly different characters. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Simple. DerEchteJoan (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose move to proposed title; Support move to the far more suitable title "Hayat Tahrir al-Sham". As previously pointed out, repeatedly, our article titling policy guides us to preferentially naming the article "Hayat Tahrir al-Sham", recommending against the inclusion of even the "simple apostrophe" where reasonable to omit it (which it is), and strongly recommends against the proposed "apostrophe-like variant". Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support "Hayat Tahrir al-Sham" or "Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham" (based on what I can tell, the former is more used in English media, so I have a slight preference for that). Cononsense (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You are also supporting a discouraged apostrophe-like variant; is that a mistake or intentional? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

good catch. I meant the simple apostrophe, unicode U+0027 ' APOSTROPHE, rather than unicode U+2019 ’ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK Cononsense (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Most sources state Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham or use the acronym of HTS RowanJ LP (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support move to Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (WITH STRAIGHT APOSTROPHE) per WP:COMMONNAME in sources. We can say it's "also known as simply Tahrir al-Sham". Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support move to Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (with straight apostrophe), as per previous comment. Alarichall (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support move to Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (with straight apostrophe). Sarrotrkux (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Once again, but for the last time, I'd like to make clear that if we can avoid the apostrophe altogether, our article titling policy says we should. Even WP:COMMONNAME nicely summarizes that "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems [such as characters it's recommended we avoid], it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" (emphasis added). "Hayat" is quite commonly enough used by English sources to be acceptable with consideration to all the titling guidance. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support, with straight apostrophe. The fuller name is now the standard usage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support move to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, without the apostrophe. If we must use the apostrophe I'd prefer it be curved as it can be confused for an ayin otherwise, but it doesn't really matter. Pescavelho (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

While interesting, and assuming you're referring to the character ayin, I don't think we should be concerned with a simple/straight apostrophe being confused with an ayin in the anglicized/romanized title, as no non-English characters should be in it. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support move to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham per above arguments. Charles Essie (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. - Amigao (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Support I had hoped to start a discussion on this, but thank you, GnocchiFan, for opening it. I support Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 01:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Support, with the straight apostrophe. The long name and its acronym are the most commonly used in media, contrary to what this article says. Glades12 (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Support move to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (but NOT Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham or Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham) because that is the most commonly used name in media.

Here is an inventory of sources that use different names: Hayat without apostrophe is used by New York Times[13], Associated Press[14], BBC[15], CNN [16], Al Jazeera[17], The Guardian[18][19], ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data)[20], The Conversation[21], The Soufan Center[22], European Council on Foreign Relations[23], and most other media, Hay'at with simple apostrophe is used by Director of National Intelligence[24], United States Commission on International Religious Freedom[25], Mapping Militants Project[26], and a few other U.S. government or think tank sources, and some sources like Center for Strategic and International Studies[27][28] and West Point[29] use multiple variations (although I would note, CSIS shifted from using an apostrophe in 2018 to not using it in 2023 and it was likely a deliberate choice). It seems like the overwhelming consensus among current media outlets and more recent updates from think tanks is to use the name Hayat Tahrir al-Sham without any apostrophes, and the use of the name with apostrophes tends to be from old government websites or old online posts by think tanks before the name without the apostophe became the consensus used by almost all media outlets. I have found this out by doing the search engine test recommended in the WP:COMMONNAME policy and described at WP:SET and looking at the first 30 results (first 3 pages of results), excluding Wikipedia itself.

I am in concurrence with the arguments made by Fred Gandt, Pescavelho, and Charles Essie on why it should be used without any apostrophe at all, as well as the WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS policy of not using an apostrophe in an article title if there are variants both with and without an apostrophe that are both common, as in Quran being used instead of Qur'an. This seems like an extremely obvious case of the policy against using apostrophes if possible, and the most commonly used name in most media not having an apostrophe, are both in 100% agreement. The Center for Strategic and International Studies used the apostrophe in their older post in 2018[30] but moved away from that to not using the apostrophe at all in 2023[31], and current news media almost all avoids using the apostrophe. Use of the apostrophe appears to have fallen out of favor in the last few years in English-language media reporting on this group and there now appears to be a widespread consensus among most media outlets not to use an apostrophe; CSIS used to use the apostrophe but stopped using it. Wikipedia should follow this trend instead of being an outlier insisting on a different name from everyone else. Additionally, the current page title of Tahrir al-Sham is obviously very bad because most people refer to this group as HTS and then it has to be clarified that this is an acronym that stands for Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS is just used as shorthand because it is shorter and easier to say and pronounce and remember, so the Wikipedia page ought to have the full title Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to avoid confusion that might be caused by using the acronym). The current title Tahrir al-Sham is missing anything that stands for the letter H used in the common acronym, so it would confuse people. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is the best title for this page (and if you note the 3 capitalized letters in it are H, T, and S, then the acronym HTS makes sense, too, avoiding any confusion, and also using the same name as most media outlets). --—yetisyny (talk • contribs) 22:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Support move, for the reason that it is the name that is used more extensively in the media.Davidbena (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It may seem pedantic, but for the sake of clarity, and with regard to the discussion, please make clear your preference(s) regarding the apostrophe. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, without the apostrophe.Davidbena (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Shafi'ism and Sufism

This page lists Shafi'ism and Sufism as parts of HTS' ideologies, but these aren't ideologies. Shafi'ism is simply a school within Sunni Islam and Sufism is a form of Islamic mystical practice, they're not ideological movements. This would be like claiming Catholicism or Protestantism is an ideology of a party. I request that these be removed. Geo (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

What you are advocating for seem to be a form of synth. Inclusion of Shafi'ism and Sufism does give crucial insights into the ideology of HTS, which is beneficial in the infobox. Moreover, Salafism is also an Islamic school of thought. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources of it supporting Shafi'ism and Sufism do not call it an ideology, they just mention it being Shafi'i and Sufi:

"Among the four dominant schools of jurisprudence, HTS chose the shafi‘i school instead of the hanbali school, despite the fact that the latter is historically closer to Saudi Salafism and more in line with the salafi method."

"This conditionality regime allows multiple compromises with the normative project: a suspension of corporal punishment due to the war context, a marginalisation of divisive concepts, an implicit renunciation of jihad, alignment with local references – Shafi‘ism – and acceptance of Sunni religious diversity – Sufism."

"They argued that the group began training its religious scholars in the Shafi’i and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence to reconnect young people with their scholars and reduce the influence of foreign intellectuals.""

Therefore, I still find it inaccurate to include Shafi'ism or Sufism in the infobox as the sources (correctly) do not label either as ideological movements.

Salafism is not a school of Islamic law on its own (i.e. madhhab), it is a conservative Islamic revivalist movement that originated as a reaction to European colonialism. It is an ideological movement, just a religiously-motivated one, and so it does fit on here. Geo (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that they are not ideologies and should be removed from the infobox.

Also, User:Shadowwarrior8 they can and should be written in the text. The infobox is not for writing everything. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring the specific exceptions listed below, an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored. The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Some infoboxes need to use more than a handful of fields, but information should be presented in a short format, wherever possible, and exclude unnecessary content. Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function. LefterDalaka (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I shall remove it. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Contradictory Statements about Treatment of Women and Minorities

While the section on ideology and governance claims that HTS hasn't pressured women to adopt a conservative dress code or interfered with their education and also restored the rights of minorities, the later section on human rights violations and war crimes claims the exact opposite, that they enforce strict dress codes and practice killings, confiscations and forced conversions of minorities.

This contradicition needs to be resolved or at least explained. As it stands, the article is incoherent. 178.239.76.143 (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Posting excerpts from source cited in the governance section regarding this. From page 262 of the chapter Idlib and the Hayat Tharir Al-Sham conundrum in Syria written by Dareen Khalifa in the 2023 book The Rule is for None but Allah: Islamist Approaches to Governance (ISBN 9780197690390):

...like most rebel groups, HTS excludes women from its leadership and political organs. However, it has not barred women from public life or from pursuing a career. Indeed, women working at schools, universities, and orphanages seem to have been running offices without much outside interference and are often vocal in their criticism of HTS. In 2020, they allowed a group of volunteers in Idlib to form a self-appointed vigilante referred to as al-hisba or the religious police naming themselves 'al Falah? And because HTS is also concerned about criticism from the more populist conservative base in Idlib, it took them months to find a way to dismantle the group without creating much backlash, but they ultimately did, stating that 'religious police have no place in a modern state.'

and

So far, HTS governance, despite being conservative, is neither socially draconian, nor is it extremist. In contrast to groups such as ISIS or the Taliban, HTS has not attempted to impose the harshest aspects and interpretations of sharia law on the over three million people it governs. The group has not compelled women to fully cover their faces, nor barred girls from going to school. HTS has also significantly improved relations with local minority groups like the Christian and Druze communities in Idlib. They have allowed Christians to reopen their churches and celebrate their holidays, and senior HTS leadership have been working to return homes they confiscated during the war to their owners.' Describing their approach to Islamist governance, HTS leaders emphasize the importance of remaining consistent with Syria's mainstream religious tradition and mores, rather than imposing more draconian restrictions. In sum, HTS's more lenient approach to governance seems to reflect years of internal restructuring that left the group with a nearly uncontested leadership that is both pragmatic and reactive to local pressures and that understands the need to reset HIS's relations with regional and international powers in order to preserve its governance.

Whoopsawa (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

In this case I must cast doubt on Dareen Khalifa being a reliable source in this context. Her statements contradict findings from multiple credible international organisations, humanitarian groups, and government institutions. A glance at her social media activity suggests a notably pro-HTS perspective, relying almost entirely on statements by Jolani or the group itself to justify her claims, and she does not seem to address the discrepancies between her and HTS' claims, and the extensive documentation provided by human rights organisations and other reputable sources.

Here are a few excerpts contradicting her claims. These are just a few examples; the reports are full of them:

U.S. State Deparment: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/528267-SYRIA-2023-HUMAN-RIGHTS-REPORT.pdf

HTS reportedly placed discriminatory restrictions on women and girls, including imposing a dress code and forbidding women from initiating divorce or voting in the areas it held. HTS also banned women and girls from wearing makeup, forbade women from living alone, and required that they be accompanied by a mahram (a man in their immediate family) in public. [...]

The COI reported in February that members of armed groups, such as the SNA and HTS, committed the war crime of rape and other forms of sexual violence. [...]

In July, the COI reported that HTS continued to “carry out the war crime of cruel treatment and torture” and that these tactics were most commonly used to force confessions or punish individuals. According to the COI and human rights organizations, HTS continued to torture and abuse activists, media workers, and others critical of HTS. Human rights groups also reported HTS routinely detained and physically abused civilians deemed to have violated the group’s stringent interpretation of sharia, which rejected secularism. HTS reportedly permitted confessions obtained through torture in its sharia “courts,” denied detainees the opportunity to challenge the legal basis or unlawful nature of their detention, and executed or disappeared perceived opponents and their families.

Syrian Network for Human Rights: https://snhr.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/R231106E.pdf

The HTS has targeted female activists in territories under its control, as well as women working with humanitarian organizations or in media. These women have faced charges related to their activism, including allegations of treason, as a way to pressure them to cease their activism or to work within the restrictive limits prescribed by the group. HTS also persecuted women who participate in anti-HTS protests or voice objections to the group’s practices. [...]

We have recorded cases where women were targeted with no clear charges, simply because they are related to members of rival groups, such as the armed opposition or the SDF, as a way to pressurize and extort enemies.

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom: https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022%20Factsheet%20-%20HTS-Syria.pdf

HTS partially withdrew its forces at Turkey’s apparent behest but not before instituting stringent, religiously justified dress codes on local women and reportedly invoking religious ideology to commit crimes such as crop theft and the torture and murder of a teenager. [...]

Religious minorities also suffer serious harm under HTS’s authoritarian regime. Since 2015, religious minorities such as Christians and Druze have lost their homes and land to HTS and its predecessors. Under the present Salvation Government, the Properties Committee (formerly the “Spoils of War” Committee) continues to misappropriate Christians’ private properties and either redistribute them to HTS members and their families or rent them to internally displaced persons for the Salvation Government’s profit. Evidence suggests that this confiscation scheme, which includes the targeting of Christians, may amount to the war crime of pillage.

Education is another sphere in which HTS’s restriction of religious freedom has been deeply burdensome, especially for women and girls. Although some observers have suggested that the group’s religious curriculum promotes slightly less harsh interpretations of Shari’a relative to the schools of other radical Islamist groups, HTS-established schools still leave little room for theological or ideological dissent from the group’s Salafi-jihadist version of Islam. In August 2022, building upon existing religiously justified and compulsory sex segregation in schools and wider society, the Education Directorate of the Salvation Government gave oral instructions to teachers and administrators to block married female students—including girls subjected to forced child marriage—from attending public schools and universities.

United Nations: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g24/133/77/pdf/g2413377.pdf

HTS detained men, women, and children as young as seven. They included civilians detained for criticizing HTS and participating in the demonstrations, as well as victims of crime arrested for attempting to pursue justice through its “salvation government” courts. During the reporting period, methods of torture – including shabeh, dulab and beatings with pipes, cables and sticks – were documented in the following detention facilities: Harem prison, prisons in Sarmada including the courthouse prison and Hakim prison (C-11 branch), Al-Dana police station, the HTS criminal security branch, and the prosecutor’s office building in the city of Idlib. Detainees held in Harem prison in 2023 were subjected to shabeh and beatings, in one case resulting in a fractured arm. A female former detainee described how she had been hung upside down for three hours to pressure her to confess, and had witnessed a fellow detainee’s injuries following severe beatings. Pregnant women, women with small children, and girls were also reportedly detained in Harem prison. [...] A civilian man was flogged after being sentenced to more than 50 lashes by a judge in Sarmada criminal court in 2023. Children, some appearing as young as 7, were detained in a separate cell and distributed food to other prisoners. [....] Fair trial guarantees were lacking. All detainees accused in security-related cases documented by the Commission were barred from legal representation. Civilians were brought before “salvation government” military courts. In several cases, detainees were not aware whether they had been convicted or what their sentence was. Two detainees reported being ordered by a judge to fingerprint documents, not being able to put forward a defence and not having a lawyer. Another detainee was informed that she had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, without ever appearing before a court. In several instances, detainees’ releases were conditional on signing pledges not to oppose or criticize HTS. [...]

The Commission has reasonable grounds to believe that HTS members continued to commit acts of torture and cruel treatment, as well as passing sentences and carrying out executions without a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable. These acts may amount to war crimes. Furthermore, there are reasonable grounds to believe that HTS members may have committed acts tantamount to enforced disappearance.

European Union Agency for Asylum: https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2024-04/2024_Country_Guidance_Syria_EN.pdf

HTS forces have been involved in extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests and unlawful detention of civilians. Enforced disappearances, confiscation of property, harassment and intimidation against women were also reported. In recent times, the group attempted to publicly distance itself from al-Qaeda and portray it as a legitimate civilian authority. Despite its legitimisation efforts, HTS continued to commit serious human rights violations. [...]

HTS targeted women media workers and activists for exercising freedom of expression, such as speaking out against the group’s rule. Women activists were detained by the group without respect for judicial guarantees. [...]

Apart from the GoS, extremist groups like ISIL, HTS and Jaysh al-Islam who identified themselves as Sunni Arab, targeted Sunni Muslims who did not adhere to the group’s interpretation of the Sharia. These groups killed hundreds of civilians, carrying out public executions, beheadings and crucifixions as a punishment for religious offences such as blasphemy, apostasy or cursing God. [...]

In Idlib, HTS seized properties and churches of Christians and restricted their right to worship and prohibited Christians who fled their homes in Idlib from appointing someone to appeal against rulings handed by Sharia courts regarding their property. ‘Islamist factions’ operating in Idlib governorate imposed so-called ‘jizya’ taxes (a tax historically imposed on non-Muslims by Muslim rulers) on Christians, to pressure them to leave their homes. [...]

In areas under its control, HTS had interfered in every aspect of civilian life, especially in the form of arbitrary arrests and detentions for violations of the strict dress code and restrictions on freedom of movement. In case of deviation from the imposed dress code and movement restrictions, punishments ranged from corporal punishments, such as lashing, to execution.

Sarrotrkux (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, there is going to be difference between practical conduct and ideology of militant groups.

Atrocities and criminal conduct are often documented by war monitors and international organisations.

But in the context of ideology, academic sources are more reliable.

By the way, reports of US government agencies like US State Department and USCIRF are heavily unreliable. So it isn't constructive to expand contents based on such controversial sources. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The governance section of this article fails to mention that the content it describes is almost entirely self-proclaimed by HTS and contradicted by reports of numerous human rights organisations and international institutions. I have taken a look at Khalifa's chapter in the cited book. The quotes posted by @Whoopsawa are sourced as following by Khalifa: "Author interview, HTS leader, Idlib, October 2021" and "Author interview, Jolani, Idlib, December 2021". In fact, the most commonly cited sources in the entire chapter are "Jolani", "HTS Commander", "HTS Leader", and "Syrian Salvation Government Official".

This means that this Wikipedia section on HTS's supposed tolerant governance is primarily founded on the words of the leadership of an internationally designated terrorist group, with little acknowledgment of contradictory evidence.

Meanwhile, you are questioning credible reports by human rights organisations, US government agencies, EU government agencies, and the UN, all of which contradict HTS' self-portrayal and document a variety of serious human rights violations and repressive policies enforced by the group.

Regarding your claim about controversial sources, the link you shared does not mention the U.S. State Department or USCIRF as unreliable sources, nor are they listed in the list of deprecated sources. If those sources have been classified as "heavily unreliable", could you please provide the discussion where this was decided? Additionally, do you also disregard reports from the United Nations, European Union, and the Syrian Network for Human Rights as "heavily unreliable"?

Sarrotrkux (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you to engage in good faith, focus on content and avoid making strawman arguments.

Whatever you think about Whoopsawa's source, it is a secondary, academic source published by the Oxford University Press; and not a POV or primary statement issued from some HTS-affiliated media organisation, as you appear to portray.

Several international organizations document about human rights abuses and criminal activities of various state and non-state armed groups. That's what they do. This doesnt mean that they are documenting about governance model and political ideology and have the academic expertise on that field.

Also, note that there are issues with your edit here, such as:

i) cite bombing in the first para. (with 9 links!!? that repeats US State Department source 4 times, and EU Agency for Asylum twice. Simultaneously, you have quoted the outdated versions of some reports as well. These are indeed un-constructive edits)

ii) It is the burden of the editor to ensure verifiability of inserted contents by citing page number of the sources. You havent provided page numbers for any of your citations.

Lastly, you ask me why US govt propaganda sources are not deprecated in wikipedia. Several Russian government propaganda sources are deprecated in wikipedia, why not the US? Because there is anglo-american centric systemic bias in wikipedia. US govt is literally a foreign occupation force in Syria, and the war-propaganda reports of US government agencies in this context are not credible at all. Where is the documentation of civilians killed in US airstrikes in US State Department reports? Absolutely nowhere are U.S. military crimes mentioned in US govt propaganda sources. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Which supposed strawman argument are you referring to?

My critique of @Whoopsawa's cited source is both valid and relevant to this discussion. While the book is published by Oxford University Press, the chapter in question predominantly relies on statements from HTS leaders themselves, obtained through interviews. The fact that HTS’s self-portrayals are cited in a book published by a reputable publisher does not make those claims factual; it merely confirms that HTS made them. Moreover, I explicitly acknowledged in my comment that the chapter’s author cites HTS as a source, so your suggestion that I "portrayed it as a primary source" is incorrect.

Secondly, your assertion that human rights organisations supposedly lack the expertise to document political ideology misses the point. These organisations are documenting what happens on the ground - the actual impact of HTS governance and policies. This is more indicative of reality than carefully curated statements from HTS given in interviews. The section is called "governance" and not "ideology".

As for your comments on "cite bombing," including multiple references to substantiate critical points is important when dealing with a contentious topic. If sources from different credible organisations overlap, it serves to demonstrate the consistency of findings. This is also why I included findings across multiple years.

On the issue of page numbers, I am open to including them. However, the reports group topics by violation type, not by the perpetrating group, which makes pinpointing a single page or page range impractical. That said, I’m happy to add exemplary page numbers, though readers might mistakenly assume that the cited pages are all there is. It would be good to get input from other users on the best approach to address this concern.

As for bias, as a non-American I also sometimes perceive bias towards American sources on the English speaking Wikipedia, but US sources are subject to public scrutiny and in this case corroborated by a range of independent organisations. You are simply wrong in claiming that the US government does not report on civilians killed in US airstrikes, including in Syria. Please stop making up false claims that other users have to disprove just because the reports don’t align with your personal opinion. They do not become unreliable just because you are unhappy with what they document.

Frankly, your willingness to dismiss reports by the UN, EU, US, and human rights organisations in favour of HTS’s self-portrayals in interviews raises the question of neutrality. If you want to debate the reliability of US sources or perceived bias on Wikipedia, I suggest raising that issue on the reliable sources noticeboard. As it stands, these sources are not considered unreliable. And as you yourself have inadvertently pointed out by calling my edit "cite bombing", the human rights violations committed by HTS are documented not just by the US but also by the UN, EU, and independent human rights organisations.

Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

History is too detailed, specially the month-by-month subsections of 2017

The article is now nearly 200,000 bytes, making it too long to read comfortably in a typical session. In particular, the history goes into much too much detail, most obviously in the 12 month-by-month subsections of the 2017 section. The material should be consolidated, preserving citations where reasonable, and dropping minor details to convey the bigger picture more clearly. There are also too many short sections and too many very short paragraphs, so all of these need to be consolidated into a brief readable text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is understandably subject to a lot of attention right now, and thus unfortunately subject to a lot of WP:RECENTISM. Articles should always be written as if from an historical perspective. The month-by-month is in this respect not good. "How would an historian write about this organization in 100 years?" We don't have a crystal ball, so trying to keep up with the rapidly changing views of this org. is the best we can do, but Chiswick Chap is correct; curation as a big picture is required. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, and the lede is also too long. For instance, listing the numerous factions that merged to form HTS, the dates of these splits, and the roles of various leaders belongs in the history section. Sarrotrkux (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Public Opinion

This section entirely rests on one study ostensibly conducted by The ECHO Research Centre at Laurentian University, yet I'm not able to find the original source anywhere, and the archive link doesn't work anymore. I propose we delete this section unless anyone can find the source for this. Vember94 (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I confirm your search and agree with removing that paragraph. I noticed that the (single) link that is there doesn't work either. Look it up yourself if you want to. LefterDalaka (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a dead source, which is also heavily outdated.

I shall delete the section. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

agree LefterDalaka (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024

Typo, one "the" too much: Change "[...]stating the the concept had no place in a modern state." to "[...]stating the concept had no place in a modern state." Graugnarz (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done The AP (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Addition to the introduction of the designation of terrorist organisation

User:Shadowwarrior8 according [MOS] "Value-laden labels are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution" Where is your problem ? LefterDalaka (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"Terror" label is not used to describe any militant group in wikivoice, especially in first sentence.

Even corporate news outlets like BBC, CNN etc. do not present HTS as a "terrorist group", but rather as a "rebel" or "militant" group.

Other encyclopaedias like Britannica encyclopaedia introduces HTS as a "militant" group.

Apart from that, HTS is currently a state actor aligned with the Syrian transitional government. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

What you claim about the first sentence I did not find in the link you provided. Could you please write me the sentence that states it; as for the rest, they are your own personal opinions, which have nothing to do with the rules of the wp. LefterDalaka (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

These are what the sources I provided stated. Also, Burden is on the editor who wants to insert disputed content. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

and if the problem is about the first sentence, I can move it further down in the introduction. LefterDalaka (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, there was a statement of "terrorist" designation of HTS (with attribution of designating states) in the lede's 4th para before. I shall re-insert it. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

O.k., then. Thank you LefterDalaka (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I forgot. Can you first revert the contents in the first sentence? @LefterDalaka Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

what? LefterDalaka (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Υou have also violated the WP:1RR rule LefterDalaka (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Unable to edit this article

I tried to correct some of the horrible errors of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation (all of which can serve to undermine the credibility of our project), but found that this article appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 98.123.38.211 (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic/national makeup of HTS's ranks

In order to help make this article more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we mention the ethnic/national makeup of HTS's ranks? Other news sources are saying that HTS's ranks include Uyghurs, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pakistanis, etc., yet the current version of this article simply says there were several thousand "foreign" fighters. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)