Wikipedia

Talk:Al-Nusra Front/Archive 1

< Talk:Al-Nusra Front
(Redirected from Talk:Jabhat Fateh al-Sham/Archive 1)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 109.119.227.121 in topic Twitter sources
Archive 1

Requested move

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant → Al-Nusra Front –

  • "Al-Nusra Front" alone is by far the more common name in the media, as a Google serch will show.
  • "Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant" is a misnaming. The group's Arabic name is Jabhat al-Nusra li-ahl al-Sham, roughly meaning "front for the protection of the people of the Levant". Nusra roughly means "protection" and Jabhat roughly means "front", so "Al-Nusra Front to Protect..." means "protection front to protect". However, Nusra is only used once in the group's name. ~Asarlaí 23:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - titles of Wikipedia articles generally use the long form of a name, even if a shorter form is often employed by the media. For example, the article on what is often called the Tamil Tigers is named after its long form Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Regarding the imprecise translation: I'm sure you're right, but unfortunately this seems to be the translation used by most media, so we have to use it — coming up with a translation of our own would be original research. The best we can do is to note in the article that "a more precise translation would be <...>". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose It is better to use the full name--DanielUmel (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The flag is incorrect

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

According to this report on page 18, [1] the Al-Nusra does not use the standard Jihad flag. Although I can't read Arabic, I can obviously tell it is different. I suggest we change it. I wonder what the copyright status be of the flag. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that al-Nura protected the image... I believe there are no copyright violations. --Wüstenfuchs 09:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments12 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust TheHomonculus 07:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant → Al-Nusra Front – The previous move request was ended pre-maturely without much attention. Only 3 people voted. user:DanielUmel is a sock-puppet, and Taal...well...he's Taal. Wikipedia's policy on Article titles is wp:commonname. "Al-Nusra" is far more commonly used in the news media than the long title: [2]. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Link with FSA updated --Rahulkris999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

English translation and transliteration of Nusra Front

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Nusrah Front, Arabic: جبهة النصرة لأهل الشام, is transliterated "Jabhat al-Nusrah li-Ahl al-Sham" and translated as "The Support Front for the People of Syria".

Hans Wehr's Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic translates Arabic: نصرة (nusrah) as "help, aid, assistance, support, backing". The related word Arabic: نصر (nasr) in addition to the above meanings also has the meaning of "victory, triumph".

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem with citation

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am having trouble with the Quilliam Foundation citation [currently citation 13 in the History section] ; no matter what I do, when I edit it the link does not become a hyperlink to that external page. Perhaps someone else can see if they can improve it? David O. Johnson (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge with AQI

Latest comment: 11 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

Leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, "It's now time to declare in front of the people of the Levant and the world that al-Nusra Front is but an extension of the Islamic State of Iraq and part of it,"

"We thus declare ... the cancellation of the name of the Islamic State of Iraq and the name of al-Nusra Front and grouping them together under one name, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,"

(Reuters)

I suggest this page is merged with the al-Qaeda in Iraq page creating the page Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria. --Liquidinsurgency (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

:No, because Abu Golani and the other Al nusra leaders did not agree with the merger. The article will still be kept anyway because for over a year they were a separate, and they are a seperate group fighting in Syria. Second of all your thinking of Islamic State of Iraq Sopher99 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that is like merging al-Shabaab with AQ. Fact that they are their branch must be mentioned clearly in the headline of article but there is no need for merger. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The fact that the two organization merge to form a new organization, do not warrant the deletion of this page. Al Nusra had a separate existance for more than one year and led decisive actions. This page is treating Al Nusra when they weren't completely part of al Qaida. --Malsius Germon (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • They are two branches of the same organisation, so I support keeping them separate, but we should do something with the titles. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
True, I was thinking about adding part of Al-Qaeda in Iraq above the logo as in case of Battle of Aleppo and part of Syrian civil war. Don't know if it is possible. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

:::Al nusra has not confirmed this "merger". It looks like jealously and wishful thinking on part of the Iraqi's to me. Sopher99 (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And to me it came as no surprise. AQI was giving them weapons for free while they were taxing FSA smugglers. Same ideology, same battle flag, same refusal of colonial borders. They see no difference between Iraq and Syria. For them its Caliphate of Ummah, period. They did not join SIF although Ahrar al-Sham is there and other salafi groups. Clashed with Farouq and other FSA. They are strongest in Deir. Not surprised one bit. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Also read this for proper understanding [3]. JAN is not just another salafi group, they clearly distinct themself from all others. Read Aaron Y. Zelin analysis on them. It came to me as no surprise. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, it doesn't matter how much Sopher thinks he "gets" by following Jihadi PR Twitter accounts, his opinion does not trump what reliable sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, stick to the sources. Sources don't say al nusra confirmed this. Sopher99 (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
That's besides the point. The reliably sourced content does not claim they confirmed it. Its continued inclusion is not up for discussion, and your silly interpretations are irrelevant. Please stop this blatant POV-pushing. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
.Why would they announce a merger of a group that would refuse? You make no sense here. It seems that you fear the bad press the rebels will get for that announcement and that you want to hide it. --Malsius Germon (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

:::Because al nusra was successful in winning the people support while alaeda in iraq were not. Therefore alqaeda in iraq would wish for their trademark. Sopher99 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: Your own made-up interpretations are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Please stick to what the sources actually say. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

International press agencies are reporting it as a merger and are not doubting it: by exemple Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/09/us-syria-crisis-nusra-iraq-idUSBRE93807R20130409 Malsius Germon (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC) ::The source is just reporting on Iraqi alqaeda's claims. What the source says. Sopher99 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That has zero relevance to whether the claim should be mentioned in the article or not. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't be mentioned in the lede. Just in the History. Sopher99 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
You don't get to decide what should be mentioned where. The reliable sources do. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Why merge? - I don't see any reason to merge. The ISI consist of a number of groups, and now Nusra is among them. Jabhat al-Nusra is notable enough to have its own article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

^^^ ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Al Golani statement about Al Qaida

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Al Golani issued a speech following the yesterday statement of Bagdadi. It seems he wasn't aware of it and the statement was directed by Zawahiri.

He basically said that Al Nusra would keep its name and not operate under the Islamic state of Iraq and Levant name. But he also sworn allegiance to Zawahiri, making Al Nusra, the Al Qaida branch in Syria. Martin Blake III (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

An "FSA spokesman" distanced his group from Nusra, but that probably won't mean anything on the ground.[4] FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Moaz Katib tried desperatly yesterday to paint this as a failed attempt by Al Qaida to takeover a syrian group (Al Nusra). Golani words will probably silence him for a moment. I don't think the FSA has really a choice on the ground. It's more Al Qaida who are tolerating them than the contrary, if we are lookin to the comparative strength. Martin Blake III (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


allegiance [əˈliːdʒəns] n 1. loyalty, as of a subject to his sovereign or of a citizen to his country 2. (Historical Terms) (in feudal society) the obligations of a vassal to his liege lord See also fealty, homage [2] [from Old French ligeance, from lige liege]

To me it's clear that the allegiance doesn't me ally at all. Golani put Al Nusra as a subordonate of Al Qaida leadership. Martin Blake III (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Translation of the name

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Any Arab Wikipedian can easily remember that nuṣrah means "defending (against injustice), championing" rather than "victory". One can see it's more likely the front call themselves "defenders of the people of the Levant" than a "victory front for the people of the Levant", whatever that means. The lede should be fixed accordingly. —What's_the_big_deal?! 12:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source is needed.David O. Johnson (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean like a dictionary ? (BTW isn't it funny the translation as it stands isn't backed by a citation?)—Arpose 20:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. I will go ahead and change it. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

conflicting dates

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the infobox under 'active', it says that al-Nusra has been active since 23 Jan 2012. However, in the 'attacks' section it is stated that one of the first bombings for which al-Nusra was suspected occured on 23 Dec 2011. One of these dates has to be incorrect, because i'm quite sure a group that hasn't been formed yet is able to commit bombing attacks. I think we should find the correct date al-Nusra has been founded and change it on the page. If we can't find the correct date, I would suggest changing the date in the infobox to '2011-present' or 'late 2011-present'. Terrortank (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Time article states that "The group was unknown until late January 2012, when it announced its formation, although Abu Adnan admits that it was active for months before then." So it was active in 2011, though it was not officially announced until 2012. I think we should leave it as is and leave the official date intact. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Not Really Al Qaeda

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section that sources that they are part of Al Qaeda references a statement made by an Al-Nusra leader that claims that they are not merged. Therefore I am removing the claim. Lots of people will read this and they shouldn't be mislead into believing this is Al Qaeda.

216.246.130.20 (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Article for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have its' own article? David O. Johnson (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the Islamic State of Iraq page (which needs major work) should be renamed as there is a direct continuity between the two organisations. Everything related to ISIS should go on thatpage, while this should be focused specifically on Golani's group. Gazkthul (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


History wrong?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I´m talking about this part... "In May 2013, Al Nusra members possessing 2 kg of Sarin Gas were arrested in Turkey.[31]"

Wrong??? source... http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_05_30/Turkey-dismisses-reports-that-terror-suspects-had-sarin-2726/ quote: "However, Cos said "there is no gas or anything of that sort captured as claimed," adding that they had found "some chemicals" that were still being studied by experts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.6.115 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been updated following the Turkish indictment of those arrested in May. NB there is an arrest in September [5] which is similar and may or may not be Al-Nusra-linked as well. Only initial reports lacking detail available so far. Podiaebba (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Terrorist

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like this definition of the group reworded to reflect that some consider it as such. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the nature of this group, why not have a section called, Al-Nusra Front: Human Rights and Terror Acttacks? 88.107.50.126 (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Attacks

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Attacks section was becoming unwieldy and took up a large part of the article. I have kept all the attacks but removed the subheadings and summarised them, especially the "opposition said this, government said that" bits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazkthul (talk • contribs) 03:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

While this section is a little untidy, might it be improved with some reformating? 88.107.50.126 (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC) P.S: without sub-headings, does it not seem that this section is more unwieldy? 84.13.186.44 (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Abu Mohammad al-Golani

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why does Abu Mohammad al-Golani redirect to this page? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Relation with National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces added

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

New section about relation with National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces added--Rahulkris999 (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Needs work

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article is full of grammatical errors, non-sequiturs and other kinds of linguistic problems. I've just deleted a sourced quote from an article by Kenneth Timmerman to the effect that AN were caught with "similar" weapons, that omitted (a) any mention of what the weapons were similar to, and (b) the fact that Timmerman is a conservative US politician, and so a dubious RS.

I don't know what to do about this; it's a disease that many Wikipedia articles suffer from, perhaps the result of different people writing different sentences in the same paragraph, and other people turning up and changing a few words in a sentence. Someone who is a subject expert perhaps should have a go at rewriting the article, preserving the sourced material, and unmangling the english.

I would certainly describe this as a Bad Article - perhaps it should be nominated for deletion? An article on this group is needed, but this article doesn't come across as at all reliable.

Few wikipedia articles about the Middle East are "good" in the sense of being both well-written and reliable - too many axe-grinders with a poor command of english pitch-in with ill-considered edits, so maybe there's nothing that can be done.

MrDemeanour (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I read over part of the Analysis section concerning the interview the head of Al-Nusra had with Al Jazeera & there are no sources given; it's just someone's opinion. I know what exactly you mean. I'm going to remove part of that section.David O. Johnson (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, the lead should have few if any citations per MoS.~Technophant (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ideology

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit removed quite a bit of content with edit summary "clean up". I think there needs to be more justification than that. I was unable to revert the edit.~Technophant (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I did some much needed major clean up as per [6]. I removed what I felt to be unsourced content and removed redundancy and repetition. Now, the article is less of a Bad Article and needs less work. However, if anyone feels it is justified to re-instate something, I am fine with that, and I am willing to discuss afterwards. Worldedixor (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

United Nations

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The footnote in the Lead does not support the statement that the United Nations has designated al-Nusra as a terrorist organization. It only says that it has blacklisted the group as a terrorist organization, which is not the same thing. Unlike many countries, the United Nations does not keep an official list formally designating groups as terrorist organizations. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ümit Yaşar Toprak

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was "The Turk" the leader, a leader of al Nusra? -- Esemono (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"Allies" include Free Syrian Army?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We should do something to the allies and opponents sections of the infobox to reflect Nusra's mixed relations with the FSA. I'm not sure what changes would be appropriate. 130.64.98.193 (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ally Israel

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Israel has been making airstrikes on the Syrian government. And people within the Syrian gov. have been saying that Israel is coordinating with terrorists, this one, to inflict damage on the Syrian gov. Any follow up on this?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.57.247 (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hacked site

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

thumbnail|http://s29.postimg.org/579xwwtxy/Sem_t_tulo.jpg I was searching a site about bed bugs and it was hacked by Al-Nusra http://howtoeliminatebedbugs.net/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkfalk (talk • contribs) 12:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Breakaway rumours and Nusra denial?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The rumours of a breakaway from al-Qa'ida were very poorly sourced and the Reuters report sloppily written. At the same time, the AFP report about Nusra denying the reuters report contains a made up quote that did not exist in the Nusra statement. Specifically, the AFP report cited says that the March 2015 Nusra statement contained the words: "completely denies reports of a break-up with Al-Qaeda." That sentence simply did not exist in the Nusra statement and so the reference here should be removed. In reality, the statement slammed the Reuters report for what it said were numerous lies and fabrications, but only specifically responded to and denied rumours that Nusra officials had met with Qatari agents.

I propose that the relevant part of the introductory paragraph be changed to read: Despite some reports in early 2015 that the al-Nusra Front was considering leaving al-Qaeda, with the al-Nusra Front to abandon its current name and merge with smaller Islamist groups, such as Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar, to form a new entity that will receive funding from the Gulf States,[35] there has been no official confirmation or denial from the group that it plans to take such a step (insert reference to official March ANF statement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:6200:41C:7538:C28:C759:CE98 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Qatar as an Ally

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Many coherent sources reportedly show Qatar funding Al-nusra and the Lybian civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.153.56 (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The al-Nusra Front or al-Nusra Front?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Perhaps editors could make up their minds what to call this group, "the al-Nusra Front" or "al-Nusra Front". Both appear in this article. This kind of sloppiness gives Wikipedia a bad name. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

--> It ought to be "Jabhat al-Nusra" or "the Nusra Front" throughout the article. The al-Nusra Front is decidedly awkward for anyone who knows even rudimentary Arabic (the definite article is repeated), whereas simply "al-Nusra Front" seems awkward in English. Jabhat al-Nusra is the most common by google search results right now, with al-Nusra Front the least common of the three formulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:6200:41C:F4A4:33D5:ECD6:E4E3 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"The al-Nusra Front" translates to "The The Nusra Front" and shouldn't be used. I agree with the above that Jabhat al-Nusra makes more sense than this mixing up of Arabic and English in the same name. Gazkthul (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wahhabism and Salafism

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

There seems to be some confusion over these two terms in the Ideology section of the info-box. From my understanding, Salafism and Wahhabism are very similar if not the same. Salafism is the purest form of the Islamic religion, the form of Islam that was practiced during the days of the Prophet Muhammad and the Sahabah (Companions). The term Salaf means ancestor, which is where this connotation takes place. Wahhabism arose in the region of Najd, around the 18th century when Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab wished for the lands of Arabia (Now roughly Saudi Arabia) to return to the true form of Islam practiced by during Muhammad's time. He would never have labelled himself or his followers Wahhabis. These people use the term Salafi when referring to themselves. See the article here for a more detailed explanation [7]. It's the equivalent of terming those who practice the Alawite offshot of Shia Islam as Nusayris, as they follow teachings of Ibn Nusayr. This term is only used by those who themselves are not Alawites. Wahhabism is nothing more than a term used to describe a Salafist-revivalist movement that took place in Arabia around 300 years ago.

When it comes to ideology, I try and use information which comes from sources that uses no opinionated language, unlike most articles from media institutions. The most partial and reliable sources are ones which analyze these groups and build profiles on them, especially when it comes to something so sensitive as Ideology. e.g: [8], [9], [10], [11]. StanTheMan87 (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You are precisely incorrect. Wahhabism is used by various academics because it was used historically. The western audience are more aware of Wahhabism then Salafism.. Salafism should be kept in tact but Wahhabism needs to be in the box as well. The term is used for historical purposes not to be derogatory. The movement arose and was labeled such. Wahhabism began shortly before the creation of the Saudi Arabian kingdom and Saud's relations to Abdulwahhab is noteworthy. Salafisms prominence can be traced back to Muhammad_Abduh. It was difficult to differentiate the new movement as they refered to themselves as Sunni Muslims. The term Wahhabi was developed to identify them. The Saudis only recently began spreading the term Salafi to refer to themselves. Read page 4 [12] Blizzio (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Show me historical use of the term 'Wahhabi' dating back before the 20th century. The movement which arose out of Arabia by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was never termed 'Wahhabi' by any of its followers. This phenomenon only arose by the mid to late 20th century. They were referred to as Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaa'ah or Salafis. If you ever approached an al-Nusra or an IS fighter and referred to them as a 'Wahhabi Muslim' or just simply as a 'Wahhabi', they will cut your head off. This term has no resonance in this part of the world, nor with any of the groups this word is used to describe. It is only in the non-Islamic world where this term is used, by non-muslims who know very little, in order to differentiate a form of Islam practiced today vs a form practiced in the past. I don't even know why I bother, you have demonstrated your ignorance and lack of knowledge when you wrote "Salafisms prominence can be traced back to Muhammad_Abduh". Salafism's 'prominence' can be traced back to the form of Islam that was practiced during the days of the Prophet Muhammad and the Sahabah (Companions). What you and other people know as 'Wahhabism' is just an 18th century Salafist revivalist movement. Why you seek to invent differences between the followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab 300 years ago, and Muhammad 1400 years ago is beyond me, they are the same Islamic practices and beliefs. StanTheMan87 (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Usage of the term Wahhabi was wide spread before the 20th century. One example is in the Ottoman propaganda piece of Ayub Sabri Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East. I just told you above that they referred to themselves as Sunni Muslims. The movement rejected Madhabs but they refused to be labeled anything but "just muslims" or followers of the quran and sunnah. Since they followed a man named Abdulwahab they were labeled such. Its like how the followers of imam Shafi are labeled Shafis. Al nusra cuts heads off as a hobby I dont think they need any excuses. The term was used by muslims first not non muslims. Here is a historical document analyzing how muslims refuted Wahhabis [13]. Blizzio (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Blizzio is right. These modern extremist rebels have little to do with the salaf despite what they may claim in their propaganda.
StanTheMan87, you have deleted the Wahhabism link from ISIL as well despite it was added several times by several users, and you have made 3 consecutive reverts to delete it from al-Nusra Front within less than one and a half hours today ([14], [15], [16]). Please slow down on your reverts. Violation of WP:3RR may result in block for you. Khestwol (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I commend StanTheMan87 for reverting any addition of Wahhabism as ideology in the infobox and I would also oppose any addition of Wahhabism until a reliable source (sources) can be presented and consensus can be reached. StanTheMan87 has provided good sources for inclusion of Salafism. However the same cannot be said for those wanting inclusion. Mbcap (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Associated Press isnt reliable? Blizzio (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please include the acronym "JaN" somewhere

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Complete noob here (and on the whole war/conflict(s)), so please forgive...

It took me a LONG time to find out that JaN is the same as alNusra Front. It would be very helpful to include the acronym "JaN" SOMEWHERE, either at the top of this article (along with "JN"), or as a result in a Wikipedia search. Google was not helpful (top result was half naked women apparently named "Jan" w/others being irrelevant).

This war/conflict is confusing enough as it is, and I rely on Wikipedia a lot to help me understand what's going on. Thanks for all that you guys do!

67.7.10.195 (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 Y Done. Thanks for pointing this out, this is the most common acronym for the group and hadn't noticed it wasn't included in the article. Nulla Taciti (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Noob here again. Thanks (!) for including JaN acronym. Can you/someone also direct noobs like me to a page that will lead to al Nusra Front when we go to the Wikipedia main page and do a search for JaN? Searching in that way does not lead one to the al Nusra Front page at all. No "disambiguation" or redirect or anything. Try it and see for yourself. Thank you very much!!!

71.219.191.82 (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Y Done. Created a redirect page so a search for "JaN" leads the user straight to this article. Also added JaN to the acronyms section of the Jan disambiguation page. Nulla Taciti (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of video released by Nusra

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/06/al-nusrah-front-celebrates-911-attacks-in-new-video.php

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2db_1435341639

https://pietervanostaeyen.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/al-manara-al-bayda-new-video-by-jabhat-an-nusra-the-heirs-of-glory/

21:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Alliance with IS

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It has been previously reported that al-Nusra, or at least certain commanders in al-Nusra, pledged allegiance to the IS. This news article says “Jabhat a-Nusra [JAN] has no role, since it is an ally of the Islamic State in the area.” http://syriadirect.org/news/syria-direct-news-update-9-2-15/ 2601:600:8500:B2D9:D92A:C857:4F4E:88D5 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That is true, but is specific to the South Damascus area and involves local fighters in both groups. In most of Syria they are actively fighting, and their senior leaderships are enemies. Gazkthul (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Swedish support

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This information, which is a big deal in Sweden, has been removed. Swedish goverment has sended money to al Nusra. Read this for instance: [17] Miantonimah (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the biggest papers in Sweden, Aftonbladet, writes that 40 million Swedish kronor was sended to them: [18] Miantonimah (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The Centre for Research on Globalization is a WP:FRINGE source, do you have any English language WP:RS? Gazkthul (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

ETYMO

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.246.183.206 (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Al-Nusra Front. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge Jabhat Fateh al-Sham back here

Latest comment: 8 years ago39 comments14 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Jabhat Fateh al-Sham is not a "successor group" to the Nusra Front, it is simply the same group with a new name. We don't have separate articles for "Islamic State" and "Islamic State of Iraq and Sham" either, just because they changed name. And even after that group changed its name to IS, we still refer to them as ISIS/L. So why should this group be treated any different? FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

JFS may claim to be a new group but its leadership and organization are still exactly the same. It's the same reason that Academi and Blackwater have the same articles despite the organization changing its name and its logo. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
3bdulelah "JFS called itself a new group, not a new name," : have you got a source ? Also, between 2012 and 2013, al Nusra was not a part of Al Qaeda, but we haven't a special article about Al Nusra (2012-2013) and about Al Qaeda in Syria (2013-2016). --Panam2014 (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if they "claim" to be a new organisation, no reliable sources consider them as such, and they have exactly the same members, ideology and goals. As for the ISIL predecessors, those did have different membership and leaders in adittion to other names, unlike ISIL/IS and NF/JFS. FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I think keeping both articles is important, if we merge them under "Jabhat Fateh al-Sham" Wikipedia will lose an important article about Nusra front and the new article will be too long, both infoboxes are important. 3bdulelah (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
No info will be lost if we merge them. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
"Al-Nusra Front" is still by far the most common name for this group, so we're not going to name the merged article Jabhat Fateh al-Sham the same reason that the article for IS is at the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and not the Islamic State, despite the latter being its official name. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Which sources state it is a "new group"? It is the exact same group just with another name. Just like ISIS/IS. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The group itself said that, and BTW this is not important, both articles should remain because we did the same in iraq with Al Qaeda in Iraq ans ISI. 3bdulelah (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
AQ in Iraq did not have the same leadership and so on, so no, it is not comparable. But yes, you can compare it with IS, which is the new name of ISIS, yet they are not separate articles. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Between 2012 and 2013, al Nusra was not a part of Al Qaeda, but we haven't a special article about Al Nusra (2012-2013) and about Al Qaeda in Syria (2013-2016). --Panam2014 (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
And there is no reason why we should have. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, JFS has disconnected itself from AQ and a change in leadership/and the way which it presents itself as well as defections from extremist elements within it shows that it is no longer the same group. Just like how Haganah formed the majority of IDF yet IDF & Haganah have separate articles. For obvious reasons. Dr.Thrax1 (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It is run by Baghdadi and has the same members, territory, ideology, etc, as before. Only difference is the name and dissociation from the pretty much defunct al Qaeda. Haganah was a militia, the IDF is a state army, completely different function, structure and membership. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
JFS is not run by Baghdadi, but by Jolani. Furthermore, JFS's extreme branches are defecting as JFS will soon merge with other rebel groups who are much more mainstream, therefore the ideology is not the same (due to members leaving). The same argument you use can be applied to the IDF and Haganah as well, as nonetheless Haganah went on to form the core of IDF and both Israel and Haganah were led by David Ben-Gurion. Therefore, due to JFS's change in actions, ideologies, and leadership (on an intermediate level) we can say that JFS is not Jabhat al Nusra, despite the many similarities. Dr.Thrax1 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I know, I mixed up due to the analogy with ISIS above. The point is the same, before and after the name change, Jolani is still the leader. But no, your latter point doesn't hold water. The cases are not comparable at all; one is a simple name change, the other is two completely different entities. A militia is not a state army. If Nusra became the official Syrian army one day, then you would have a point. Again, this is more like the case of IS/ISIS, which is the same article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
JFS' "actions, ideologies, and leadership" remain the same as per most sources. Do you have a source that states otherwise? Editor abcdef (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Dr.Thrax1: Between 2012 and 2013, al Nusra was not a part of Al Qaeda, but we haven't a special article about Al Nusra (2012-2013) and about Al Qaeda in Syria (2013-2016). --Panam2014 (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It's funny that we are discussing a merge of Nusra and JFS articles while we have separate pages for YPJ and YPG. The same goes with The Beatles (terrorist cell) 3bdulelah (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Because both of them claims to exist at the same time. On the other hand the JFS claims to be a successor to Nusra. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, one is a politician group, the other is a militia. Nusra/JFS is THE SAME GROUP with another name, how is that hard to grasp? FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
ISIL is the successor of ISI and we have two articles for them, If we merge we will have a too long article with another debate of what should be the title of the new article, I'm saying let's wait because there are news of incoming rebel merger, because if that happened we may be able to merge them as the JFS one will be less important. I'm asking u to wait. 3bdulelah (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you just repeating yourself over and over again? ISIS and ISI had different leadership and territory, unlike Nusra/JFS. But IS/ISIL had the same leadership and territory, just like Nusra/JSF, therefore they are the same article. Please stop comparing apples and oranges over and over. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The Last leader of ISI was Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and he is the leader of ISIL now, ISI and Al-qaeda in Iraq all were active in Iraq and we have two different articles for them. Moreover, Nusra used to be active in Lebanon, JFS insisted that they will be active in Syria only. 3bdulelah (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge. The group is internationally still regarded as a terrorist organisation and it's very unlikely that they really cut there ties to al-Qaeda, even if they claimed.--Ermanarich (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Being considered a terrorist organisation has nothing to do with merging both articles. 3bdulelah (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Please try to Keep your personal opinions outside wikipedia, we need a source that they still refear to themselves as Nusra, As I said we have many examples of creating new articles when a group changes its name. 3bdulelah (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge. Identity in everything that makes an organization. Anything that changed can very well be presented in the article. And the inflation of ever new articles for every announcement by some Syrian Civil War folks is already absurd enough. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Nusra Front. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

rename as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham

Latest comment: 7 years ago32 comments14 people in discussion
A sizable majority support a move. Therefore moved Jabhat Fateh al-Sham.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The merge issue and the article name are two different issues. Al-Nusra should redirect to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, not the other way around. I do not yet see a consensus to title the group other than as they wish to be titled.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe Jabhat Fateh al-Sham is now more common, with al-Nusra being referred to in the past tense, e.g. "former". What the group used to call itself is irrelevant to the question of which is the more common name. I do think there should be some deference to what the group wishes to call itself, but the answer to that is "Jabhat Fateh al-Sham"--Brian Dell (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
"Al-Nusra Front" or "Jabhat al-Nusra" is still most the common name, as indicated by Google results. The name "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" was only around for 3 months but it has called itself the "al-Nusra Front" for more than 4 years. There shouldn't be any deference to the group's official name since even though ISIL have declared itself as the Islamic State more than 2 years ago, its article is still titled by its old name the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
My wife has called herself by her maiden name for 28 years and by my name for 2. Which name should we use now? By the way, I would readily admit she's the exact same person.... that's not the point, though. If New Zealand had voted to change its flag would we be talking about how many years the country had flown its former flag?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Most people who keep up with this stuff call it JFS and most people who don't still think of al-Nusra from the news and they'll see "changed its name" and go "Why didn't Wikipedia change its name? I'm confused. Is it like it's somehow still al-Nusra and, uh, this al-Shammy thing? Oh it's al-Sham now and the rest is like "army"...actually what does 'self-proclaimed' mean, is that like--". I actually linked a friend of mine to this article because I didn't feel like explaining it myself last night and I had a whole lot of confusion because this person hadn't heard of al-Nusra before it changed its name. While it might seem like a good idea to us because we keep up with this stuff, please remember we're not the only people reading Wikipedia, and editors are a minority of the population. Nuke (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Who are these "most people"? Almost all sources that use the new name add "formerly known as Nusra", unless they're some kind of Gulf state mouthpiece. Some sources don't even use the new name at all. So there is no confusion, unless you get all your news from al Jazeera. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
So? See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, If there were a consistent pattern elsewhere in Wikipedia, maybe there'd be an argument there but a single isolated incidence could well be the exception to the rule.`--Brian Dell (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
They are similar groups with a similar history. It is a precedence. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think they are that similar. How many attacks have Jabhat Fateh al-Sham made against civilians in the west? Or for that matter outside Syria? The Islamic State is on a whole nuther level when it comes to atrocities and enforcing Wahhabism in the territory it controls. The fact that a whole slew of western countries have supported air strikes on IS and not (yet) on these guys suggests that most official observers see a difference even if they are officially all terrorists. There might be a precedent anyway if there were a definitive discussion and resulting consensus so that we can say with confidence that the community put its collective mind to the question of how to title the Islamic State article but from what I can tell, that didn't happen and the current title over there can be most simply explained as that's the way the edit battles played out in that case. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of Wikipedia content is what it is simply because of the persistence of some editors.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Attacks against western civilians is not a factor in determining whether an article should be renamed at all. We don't reject the ISIL's renaming as the Islamic State because they target western civilians, we rejected the name due to the WP:MoS. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Well if the style manual settles it then whether this group is "similar" to the Islamic State is irrelevant, no? By the way, can you quote just what in WP:MoS proved to be so decisive?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
comment to Funkmonk. That is because the terrorist group called ISIL want their territory and organisation to be recognised as a Nation State and caliphate under the banner Islamic State. Islamic State is not a recognised country/nation state by any other nation states in the world. If ISIL's claimed caliphate and occupied territory were to be recognised at the United Nations then that would be different. So you are comparing apples and oranges here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The organisation calls itself IS, and so does many sources. Whether it is recognized as a country or not is irrelevant to this fact. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
They do not see themselves as an organisation, they seem themselves as an Islamic government ruling a country. It is relevant because everybody including reliable sources, except ISIL and their supporters, see them as a terrorist group occupying captured land and do not view them as an Islamic Nation State. This is one big reason Wikipedia does not move the ISIL page to IS page. You have not refuted what I said.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Erm, you're just claiming that's why the ISIL article hasn't been moved, without providing any proof (links to discussions where this is stated as the reason). It may be why you think it hasn't been moved, but that's just speculation. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Al Nusra is the more common used name, based on internet search, and the fact that the MSM needs to add "former" or "previously known as" shows that. What does wiki search tells us? I presume both names lead to this article now so I assume there is some statistics on what name is used the most. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree BBC, Al-Jazeera and CNN calls it JFS, we should care about the media not what states (US and Russia) call it! That's why I was against the merge from the beginning because it will cause more problems and confusions. If this doesn't change the same could be applied with SAA which is mainly called in the media "Assad forces", so please don't let us go this way. 3bdulelah (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
It's CNN and Jazeera themselves that call the SAA "Assad forces", "government forces", or "regime forces", so you're working against your case here. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
No I'm against double standards, eather we call things by its name (which I support) or we chose the most common name, so rename this to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham or Rename SAA page to "Assad forces" (which is wrong) 3bdulelah (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
You're both wrong. This version of "double standards" is bizarre. Let's use ISIS as an example. We don't call it Islamic State (very vague phrase which is rightfully a disambiguation page) or al-Qaeda in Iraq. We call it Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which might not be its current name, but it works. It's still close to the current name. It's not "and Syria", but that was never its official name technically. Al-Nusra is no longer close to the new name and there's no reason not to change the name. Nuke (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support because it is now the official name. There's no reason we can't just add a redirect and rephrase the lead a bit so readers know that this is "al-Nusra Front" is the former name of JFS. Nuke (talk)
  • Support. I thought that was the initial idea. Anyway, this is the name of the group now. We should use it and keep the "Al-Nusra Front" redirect here. Coltsfan (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Changing the Name of the Article - most news articles ive been reading have been using the new name. The reason why the ISIS page was not changed was due to many editors here not wanting to call the page Islamic State because they argued it would give credence to that organizations claims as to being a state.71.187.7.42 (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - no strong reason not to use official name here. Also it would have been a bit better if you made a properly formatted move request.--Staberinde (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral - it might be too soon to rename, though it is quite clear that in case the new name persists - we would have to rename this article (clearly al-Nusra and JFaS are the same organization).GreyShark (dibra) 10:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support article rename - Jabhat Fateh al-Sham is the most common name used now. Most independent mainstream news sources use the new name and refer to nusra front in the past tense such as 'formerly known as'. Al Nusra Front should be mentioned and bolded in the first sentence of the article indefinitely, however, as the organisation's former commonly known name.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (Speedy) time has moved on, usage e.g. BBC [19] and per MOS orgs say we should switch to new org name (about now or sooner, so speedy). Widefox; talk 15:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Why have you voted twice, with the same reasoning?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thought this was a new proposal, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MERGER

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jaish al-Sunna, Ansar al-Din, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, Nour Din Zinki, & Liwa al-Haq today merged together to form "Tahrir al-Sham"

Official statements here - https://twitter.com/HT_sham12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrroi (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

History

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made this infograph with @badly_xeroxed https://twitter.com/badly_xeroxed/status/826098954689470464
This explains the 3 phases of this group:

1-   Jabhat al-Nusra li Ahl al-Sham جبهة النصرة لأهل الشام - Support Front for the people of the Levant (an offshoot of Islamic state of Iraq) (2012-2013)
2-   Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Sham - Jabhat al-Nusra: تنظيم قاعدة الجهاد في بلاد الشام - جبهة النصرة al-Qaeda in the Levant - Nusra Front (Direct Branch of al-Qaeda in Syria and Lebanon) (2013-2016)
  Jabhat al-Nusra in Lebanon: جبهة النصرة في لبنان later merged under Qalamoun Branch of JaN (2013-2014)
3-   Jabhat Fatah al-Sham: Declared itself as a new group that has no ties with any organisation outside of Syria (2016-2017)

I think if we organize the history section according to these 3 phases the section will be much better 3bdulelah (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments12 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus appears in support of a move, so this article will be moved because of that. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 19:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Jabhat Fateh al-Sham → Al-Nusra Front – Hi The group have been disbanded in 2017 but the commons name of the group was Al-Nusra Front between four years (2012-2016) and the group was known as JFA during 6 months. Panam2014 (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. SkyWarrior 17:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

why are u opening a new discussion now, we already discussed that let's wait and see if the group will dissolve completely and what's going to happen to its other branches outside of Idlib. I'll make a comprehensive review on the history of Nusra and purplish it here to improve and organize the History section 3bdulelah (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@3bdulelah: The situation has changed. In the previous discussion, it was not expected that the group would be dissolved and merged with others. The commons name had become FJS. Now that the group has merged totally (yesterday's release), and that he was known as JAN for 4 years and as JFS for 6 months, a new discussion is needed. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear JFS has actually 'dissolved' though, is it? This merger may function more as a centralised coalition rather than liquidating the component groups.--Dan J Lopez (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC) @Dan J Lopez: hi, several groups have been dissolved on 28 January. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Istandwiththesilent: the group has been disbanded. And JAN was a commons name during 4 years, and JFS was only during 6 months. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Relisting comment: I see that there was consensus to move the page to the current title back on January 23, about six days before this current RM was filed. Instead of closing this, I'm going to relist this instead simply because I don't think six days is enough to change consensus (but I could be wrong). SkyWarrior 17:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Nusra Front is still the most common term under which they are known by most. EkoGraf (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - al-Nusra Front is the most commonly-known and used term. Also, al-Nusra Front existed under the "Jabhat Fateh al-Sham" brand for only 6 months, while it went by the al-Nusra name for over 4 years. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose They clearly call themselves Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and so does everyone else. In addition, the name Jabhat Fateh al-Sham is becoming more commonly used as time goes on. Denarivs (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Becoming more common? Shouldn't it be less and less commonly used since in theory JFS literally dissolved itself last month into Tahrir al-Sham? Editor abcdef (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so because we don't know if the Tahrir al-Sham coalition will hold up, so secondary sources still mostly use the Jabhat Fateh al-Sham term. Denarivs (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support In mainstream media and on plenty of older military maps of conflicts in Syria and even Lebanon the group is called Al-Nusra, under this name they reached their military successes and history will not remember their shrot-used name. Even technically all articles about others military groups in Syria call Al-Nusra this way. Sincerely --89.177.238.52 (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nusra is not designated as a terror organization by UN

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The citation for terror designation says:

> Syria had initially asked for al-Nusra to be designated a new terrorist group, but Britain and France countered with a proposal to instead list it as an alias of al-Qaeda because there were concerns about the Syrian evidence supporting its request, said diplomats, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

> http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/05/201353021594299298.html

That doesn't mean they are designated as a terror organization by UN but they are considered as "alias of al-Qaeda" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SakibArifin (talk • contribs) 14:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

That is really splitting hairs. I think the source is fine and it says what our article says. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Al-Nusra Front. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Transliteration

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm quite confused by the trans"literation" of arabic definite articles. Because ن is a sun letter, the ل of definite article is not pronounced, but there appear a shadda over the first letter of the word. Why isn't this article called An-Nusra Front? Vks (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wording nitpick in intro, saved only by context

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The United States designated Jabhat al-Nusra as a foreign terrorist organization, followed by the United Nations Security Council and many other countries." If it weren't for the idea of the US designating the UNSC and "many other countries" a terrorist organization being utterly absurd, this would be confusing as grammatically it is ambiguous whether "followed by" refers to al-Nasura or the US. That said, no big deal. Obviously the US didn't designate the UNSC a terrorist organization! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.4.175 (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

White helmets

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Associated with White Helmets, funded by the US [21] [22] 23.121.191.18 (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed alleged for Israel, they admitted to it

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20150318-israeli-army-admits-aiding-al-qaeda-in-syria/ Al Farwazirip (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Not allies of Israel

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Al-Nusra Front is not an ally of Israel Please delete from the Allies section this is only a claim Abdurhman Ahmad (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is Israel's treatment of the fighters while treating other people classifying them as "Allies" of the organization?

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The organization is clearly hostile to Israel? Would it not make more sense to just mention it below and remove them from the allied section?

Exclusive medical support is still considered support, it also includes accusations of arms support Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the content about Israel, Qatar and Turkey should be covered, with full explanation, in the "External support" section, and not summarised crudely in a potentially misleading way in the infobox. The infobox should ideally include clear, straightforward facts; where things are not straightforward at the very least the details need to be in the body first. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
What do you think is not straightforward Bobisland (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The fact that it’s been so heavily argued over on this talk page shows how contentious and un-straightforward it is. Most people understand “ally” to mean something more meaningful than occasional medical treatment plus heavily denied allegations of something more, for example. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I think two people opposing it in the talk page as heavily argued is a stretch and how would you word it War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) <— a reference Bobisland (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
See also the talk archive page and article edit history. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Twitter sources

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Twitter sources should be fine in some cases, but their number and use in this article looks worrying and I'm pretty sure they aren't always used in an adequate way. Not sure what the best template would be. 109.119.227.121 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Nusra_Front/Archive_1&oldid=1223233323"