Talk:Jaysh al-Islam

‘Army of Islam’ Coalition Established in Syria
The leader of Liwa al-Islam is now the leader of the New Coalition Jaish al-Islam Army of Islam which is a New army of 50 Battalions. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/172299#.UkhyaYb7of0 3bdulelah (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Army of Islam (Syria) be merged into Jaysh al-Islam. The articles cover exactly the same subject David O. Johnson (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, the Jaysh al-Islam page is basically identical to the original Liwa al-Islam page, so it has to be edited because the information it provides is inaccurate at the moment. I propose that we integrate the Army of Islam (Syria) page into this one, and rewrite it. The part covering Liwa al-Islam can best be placed under 'History' or 'Origins' or something like that, with another title giving the situation as it is right now (basically the contents of Army of Islam (Syria)) Terrortank (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Terrortank. 3bdulelah (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree to merging the two articles, however the Army of Islam (Syria) article appears to have partially mixed up Jaysh al-Islam (a merger of Damascus based rebel units into one group) with the Islamic coalition (Syria), a broad and very loose coaltion of major rebel groups around Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazkthul (talk • contribs) 00:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Jaish al-Islam redirect
Currently, Jaish al-Islam is a redirect to the Palestinian militant group. This is confusing, because a slightly different spelling is the title of this article. I'm hesitant to change it, though, because there are no small number of links to Jaish al-Islam, which I suppose are intending the Palestinian group. I'm not sure how many of those links come from a small number of templates, but that is a common pattern. For the time being, I added an ambiguity note at the beginning of Army of Islam (Gaza Strip).&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Mohammed Alloush
Reports (e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35364114) say that Mohammed Alloush (Zahran Alloush's brother) is the new political leader of JAI. Mohammed Alloush is also cited in this article and elsewhere as being the chief representative of the HNC, which represents the Syrian opposition in Geneva. Probably relevant to insert in the article.

183.89.37.190 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideology section clean up
I've worked on a cleaner version of the Ideology section (removing the Arabic phrases and some of the more obscure language and adding some more sources). I propose changing the section to this:

The Islamic Front criticized ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), saying: "They killed the people of Islam and leave the idol worshippers" and "They use the verses talking about the disbelievers and implement it on the Muslims".

Jaysh al-Islam released a video showing the execution of ISIS members and showed a Jaysh al-Islam Shariah official condemning ISIS as "Khawarij".

Alloush gave a speech on the merits of Hajj in 2013 and praised Usama bin Laden, addressing him by honorifics such as "Sheikh" for accomplishing Hajj at an old age. Alloush addressed the Al-Qaeda organization Jabhat al-Nusra as "our brothers", saying that "The summary of this issue is that we in Jaish Al-Islam praise our brothers of the Nusra Front [...], we fight alongside them and they fight alongside us".

In 2013, Alloush gave a speech attacking the Shi'ites, whom he called "Rafidis", the Alawites and "the Zoroastrians", saying "the mujahideen of the Levant will cleanse the Levant of the filth of Rafidis and Rafidism, they will cleanse it for ever God willing, till they will cleanse the land of the Levant of the filth of the Fireworshippers who fought the religion of God Almighty", "the Shi'a are still despicable and pitiful through history", "And I give you the news, oh filthy Rafidis: Just as the Umayyads crushed your heads in the past, the people of Ghouta and the Levant will crush them soon, they will make you taste a painful torment in this world, before God makes you taste it in the hereafter".

Alloush said that Alawites are "more infidel than Jews and Christians."

183.89.37.190 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: I went on and made the changes on the page itself, and also added the following paragraph retrieved from the Zahran Alloush page:

Alloush has denounced democracy and called for an Islamic state to succeed Assad, however in a May 2015 interview with McClatchy journalists, Alloush used moderate rhetoric, claiming that Syrians should decide what sort of state they wanted to live under and that Alawites were “part of the Syrian people” and only those with blood on their hands should be held accountable. His spokesman went on to claim that the sectarian and Islamist rhetoric Alloush had previously made was only intended for internal consumption and to rally his fighters.

183.89.37.190 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jaysh al-Islam. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131115173809/http://www.aawsat.net/2013/11/article55322150 to http://www.aawsat.net/2013/11/article55322150

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Funding/financing
Does anyone know anything about how the group finances its existence and activities? --Corriebertus (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Uncooperative behaviour (vandalism) by Naj'entus
Editor Naj'entus on 5 March,23:46, in one big and easy sweep reverted the last 33 revisions since 1March,13:36 by four (but effectively two) users, 29 of those edits had been made by me. All my edits (except 8 minor edits) were carefully motivated. Ofcourse anyone can and may revert or criticise any of those motivated edits, but he/she should ofcourse do that with clear, pointed and relevant motivations himself, too. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, remember? Naj's apology for his (rude, blunt, uncooperative) intervention is: "pov editing, removal of well sourced content. the user is probably either a supporter of the group or is hired to edit". I dislike such vague wiki-abbreviations like "pov": if I've written things that are incorrect, just say which are. If I've perhaps unintentionally chosen wordings that were partisan or 'not neutral enough', just correct them. If I have removed "well sourced content" I apparently have motivated why I did that, so please contradict that given motivation. As for his/her assumption of me being "either a supporter of the group or hired to edit": that is a personal attack. I'm certainly not hired. I'm not aware of being supporter, but that should not even be the question or allegation here. Regardless of people's possible interests, sympathies, et cetera, we should only judge their edits for the quality of them. It is not as that only 'enemies' of any topic in Wikipedia are allowed to work on that topic's Wikipedia lemma. I have ofcourse restored now the version of 5March,22:25, with further incorporated the new edits of 6 March. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You heavily editorialized the article in your 33 reversions since March 1, 2018. I reverted all of them. I won't be commenting on every single of your edits, just take the biggest one, which you've made on March 4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaysh_al-Islam&oldid=8287381220 and in which you removed all mentions of chemical weapons usage by the group and claimed in the edit summary that it was, and I quote Uncorroborated insinuation (anti-propaganda) (partly from Russian news outlet). Despite the section about chemical weapons usage being sourced with articles by the Voice of America. All in all your edits strike me as heavily PoV because you've removed basically all criticism of the group. Which makes me think you are either a supporter of the group or you are just paid to edit, in any case your edits from March 1 were removed. Cheers. Naj&#39;entus (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is really poor etiquette to accuse fellow editors of being part of an armed group or paid to edit, without really strong evidence for that. (Probably also relevant that Corriebertus has been editing here for 12 years, on a variety of topics.) I can't see what the actual edits being discussed are, because of the large-scale reverting. Can't you discuss them here one by one instead of doing large-scale back and forth reverts?BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Questions (and answers [inserted 10 March] ) to Naj'entus

 * 1) @ Mr/mrs Naj'entus: could you please tell me or us: what is 'pov editing'(as you mentioned 5Mrch23:46); where is written in a rule that that 'pov editing' is not allowed, where specifically do you assess my editing since 3 March to be 'pov' and why?
 * 2) On 7 March you suggested me to have added 'PoV comments', what are that, and where for example did I add them? (We do have a page 'Neutral point of view' which states that an article as a whole must, as far as possible, represent fairly all significant views on a topic. I agree to that, but that does not directly imply that new information cannot be added, nor that some unfounded or incorrect or irrelevant or misleading information cannot be deleted.)
 * 3) On 8 March 11:02 you accused a colleague of "removal of well sourced content": that is not forbidden if a good motivation is given for it, so that accusation is no good ground to revert any edit. You accused him of "unsourced changes to the infobox", that can only be his changing of '2017' into '2015', which I agree must be '2016' from the given source. If that apparently was the only fault in the 12 edits since 7 March 23:39, there was no ground for you to revert that whole list of edits, as you did on 8 March11:02, therefore I replace the version of 8March07:13 with that one correction. (Your "etc." then ofcourse can't qualify as motivation for reverting any other edit.)
 * 4) You specifically criticise my edit of 4 March13:23, where I removed §3.5 'Use of chemical weapons'. It appeared that no one in the section claimed that Jaysh had been using chemical weapons. Thus, having a section with that title in article Jaysh al-Islam strongly suggests, but apparently unfoundedly, that Jaysh used ch.wpns., which is (mis)leading our readers into thinking they did. Which ('anti-propaganda', uncorroborated insinuation) should not be the function of Wikipedia.
 * 5) You chastise me for having "removed basically all criticism of the group": that was not my intention, but I don't deny that I seem to have removed some '(fake) information' that seemed unfoundedly to shed a rather negative light on the group. If I've given good motivations for such edits, I don't see the problem with that. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * P.s. (point 5): removing 'criticism of the group' – I assume Naj'entus is referring to that section "Use of chemical weapons" – does not necessarily mean that you are a hard-core fan of the group; in my case I removed that section because it didn't seem to me to contain attributed 'criticism of the group' but seemed in its content to copy journalistic insinuation (or 'anti-propaganda' of the group), and in its heading to be direct insinuation ('anti-propaganda') on Wikipedia's account. Which, as I said (point 4), I believe should not be Wikipedia's business. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Challenging the rightfullness of reverting edits 5March23:46 and 7March17:14
Between 3 March and 5 March20:47, I made 29 edits in article Jaysh al-Islam, and then on 5Mrch23:46 Naj'entus reverted all that work in one reverting edit. Ofcourse I can make mistakes, and in theory it is possible that I made (grave) mistakes in all those 29 edits; but, Wikipedia being based on collaboration, we may expect from someone who disagrees with edits from a colleague and reverts them, that he clearly and understandably tells what is wrong with any edit he reverts. Naj'entus' motivation on 5March sounded: "pov editing, removal of well sourced content. the user is probably either a supporter of the group or is hired to edit". On 7March17:14, when he removed those 29 edits of mine for the second time, his extra motivation sounded: "removing PoV comments". If no one explains those terms 'pov editing' and 'PoV comments', we may assume they mean nothing. If also Naj'entus doesn't make clear the meaning and relevance of mentioned 'supporter' and 'hired to edit', I think we must conclude that his reverting of my 29 revisions on 5March, and his (second) reverting on 7Mrch17:14 of those 29 revisions plus my extra revision of 6March10:25, were totally unmotivated, implying we'll be in the right to re-instate those edits, Naj'entus will not be entitled to revert them again without CLEAR (and viable) motivations, and his previous large-scale reversals of 5 and 7 March can be assessed as having been unjustified (and uncooperative). In that case I'll expect and need and count on the support of the Wikipedia community for stopping Naj'entus (or others) from continuing such (large scale) insufficiently motivated reversals. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC) P.S. I've notified Naj'entus of this discussion. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Naj's comments about 'supporter' or 'hired' seem vague and irrelevant and personal attack: how does he envision being 'hired to edit'? What exactly qualifies someone as 'supporter' of (a group like) Jaysh? Is that supportership something Naj'entus decides about? The 'supporter' decides about? Someone else decides about? But I don’t even understand why he makes those remarks: (a) Is it to say that such 'supporter' or 'hired' person is principally unable to make a good edit? But I've never read anything that suggested that Wikipedia believes in the existence of people that are fundamentally unable to do any good; therefore, being in that state of mind (thinking some people are fundamentally unable to make any good edit) would seem rather at odds with the basic Wikipedia philosophy; (b) Or is it simply an ad hominem, an attempt to make me seem a very bad, infamous, or unreliable person/character (because of some (presumed) religious or political belief)?
 * 'removal of well sourced content': it is true that I removed sourced content (for example in edit 3March17:07 and elsewhere) but I always gave motivations for such removals, therefore they were totally normal and correct Wiki procedure. Anyone may disagree and revert any removal, but Wiki being a cooperative project it is imperative then to clearly refute the given removal-motivation, which Naj'entus did not do, except later in the discussion above on this Talk page, 7March17:18, in the case of my removing edit of 4Mrch13:23. Naj'entus then defended the removed section about chemical weapons by saying it was "sourced with articles by the Voice of America". Let me now answer to that, finally and much too late given, argument: yes the section was sourced with one(!) article of VOA and one of RT News; but those articles did not include any direct claim from anyone saying Jaysh used ch.weapons, they were merely insinuating that use; thus also our section, summarizing those 'news articles', was suggestion/insinuation. My mistake in my edit summary 4Mrch was perhaps the word 'uncorroborated': the Wikipedia insinuation was indeed sourced ('corroborated') with those insinuating media articles – but I think insinuation should not be the business of Wikipedia (and the use of chem.weap. by Jaysh, as our heading §3.5 suggested, was not corroborated). On another Talk page on 8March18:33, Naj'entus further attacked my edit summary of 4Mrch13:23 by saying I "claimed that it was russian propaganda (even though the piece was sourced by VOA)" – which was not really my claim; but I admit again that my edit summary 4Mrch may have been sloppy, fuzzy, unprecise or confusing.
 * 'pov editing' or 'PoV comments': these are mysterious, unknown phenomena to me. I asked Naj'entus on 8 March (here above, previous Talk section) what he means by those terms, I ask him, and everyone, now again what they mean.
 * On another Talk page on 8March18:33, Naj'entus mentioned his discontentment with my creating a new section 'Anti-propaganda', which I did in edit 5March12:25. I then updated old section 3.4 ("captives as human shield") from given sources, noticed that the story was weakly corroborated with two spokesmen, that website MailOnline nevertheless suggested the story was cast-iron, and that The New York Times on the other hand suggested the story might be a Syrian/Russian set-up. Thus, I gave the updated section new headings, which is normal Wiki proceeding. Ofcourse anyone may criticise such decisions or adapt them, the whole point of this long controversy however is that Naj'entus in his two reversals (5 and 7March) seemed to totally refuse to reveal his criticism and his arguments, which I believe is unacceptable in Wikipedia. But his allegation in his much too late given argument on 8March, that I had made a section 'Anti-propaganda' where I "explained all criticism of the group as russian/syrian propaganda" is untrue seems incorrect [adapted CB, 14March09:24] : in contained only the story about hostages in cages, and I'd like to hear whose 'criticism' that contains anyway. While it seemed (to the NYT and me) a rather uncertain story, which nevertheless MailOnline seemed to frame as certain, I still believe it should not be joined in a section with undisputed, well-sourced, war actions (or 'Notable incidents').