Talk:Al-Nusra Front

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Al-Nusra Front article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Military history: Middle East Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Requested move

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose It is better to use the full name--DanielUmel (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 2

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)[reply]

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: [1]. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -For the reason I stated above. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For the reasons I gave in the last discussion. ~Asarlaí 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per others. Its the common name. As a compromise we can always write in the first sentence Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra or Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant.... EkoGraf (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Simplicity rules Dafranca (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wüstenfuchs 09:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per majority of sources. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Common name. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 14:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support i agree, most news stations simply call it Al-Nusra Front . --Alhanuty (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Using the logic behind the naming of the Hamas and ETA articles after their acronyms instead of full names; however, a counter example is FARC which is named with its full less commonly known name Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Guest2625 (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looking at the refs, this is how it's commonly referred to. Another indication is the fact that only Al-Nusra Front is bolded in the lead, as opposed to the rest of the title. The literal translation isn't how it's known by. --Jethro B 00:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to this report on page 18, [2] 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)[reply]

Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that al-Nura protected the image... I believe there are no copyright violations. --Wüstenfuchs 09:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist

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)[reply]

Link with other rebel groups

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

Relation with National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces added

New section about relation with National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces added--Rahulkris999 (talk)

English translation and transliteration of Nusra Front

The Nusrah Front, Template:Lang-ar, 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 Template:Lang-ar (nusrah) as "help, aid, assistance, support, backing". The related word Template:Lang-ar (nasr) in addition to the above meanings also has the meaning of "victory, triumph".

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

Attacks

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)[reply]

Merge with AQI

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Exactly, stick to the sources. Sources don't say al nusra confirmed this. Sopher99 (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The source is just reporting on Iraqi alqaeda's claims. What the source says. Sopher99 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That has zero relevance to whether the claim should be mentioned in the article or not. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be mentioned in the lede. Just in the History. Sopher99 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to decide what should be mentioned where. The reliable sources do. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a statement denying the announcement, we should considere it fully legit, as the press agencies are reporting it. Malsius Germon (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on the civil war talk page gave a link showing Nusra confirming the merger http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/jabhat-al-nusra-merger-al-qaeda-iraq_n_3044020.html We can offially and fully link them to Al Qaida now. Any new objection? --Malsius Germon (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]