Talk:Al-Tawhid Brigade

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 21 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PokesNpolsci.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating a neutral point of view article

There were some recent unexplained reversions which have made the article non neutral. In order to make a neutral article its important to think how you would create the same article for the opposing combatant. Take a look at the 4th Armoured Division (Syria) article or the Republican Guard (Syria) to get an idea how this has been done previously. When editing this article think if you would include the same information and how you would include such information in a Syrian division article. It's also great practice at making a neutral article by working on one of these Syrian division articles or even better working on a non-Syrian army division such as the 5th Infantry Division (United States). The unexplained reverts have been reversed. Please before reverting in the future give an explanation for why you are reverting here on the talk page. Guest2625 (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please check the talkpage with User:Sopher99 --Wüstenfuchs 14:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Topics concerning an article should be done on the talk page of the article, so that other editors who read the article can contribute and readers can follow content disputes. Please copy and paste whatever conversion that is relevant to this article from Sopher99's talk page, so that we can all collaborate here on the talk page. Guest2625 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

From the talk page

No, we will not model this page as you say.

First of all, stop removing infos you simply don't like. Informations like, who's their ally, are realy relevant, and It's not you to judge what is necessary, and what is not. You are not the only editor of this article and moreover, you are violating WP:OWN. --Wüstenfuchs 20:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Its not "What I don't like". You should stop assuming that especially after I gave you the reasoning in the edit summaries. The allies and enemies are not standard for this class of articles. 209.243.38.11 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, edited while logged out. Happens occasionally when I reopen my browser between edits. Sopher99 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is what is described in the WP:I don't like it. You "good" explanations were like "it's not needed", "everytthing could be exaggerated" etc. That is a very bad argument. And what is this, "the allies and enemies are not standard for this class of articles", really? According to whom? You? I would like to know what makes you think that way? It's bad for al-Tawhid's reputation? That's not a good argument. There is place for allies and enemies in this article, especially because it's made a space for this category in the infobox, so please... --Wüstenfuchs 20:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

First off, the criteria of which I am talking about refers to undue weight. Second if you are so adamant about putting in allies and enemies, and ideology, put it in a paragraph in a section, not infobox. No tawheeed leaders attending the meeting so I removed that factually inaccurate sentence. 1 or two battalion leaders attended. Not the leaders of the brigade. Sopher99 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not undue wieght at all. What is undue weight here? Their alliance with 10,000 people-sized unit that is all over the media? Leave it out. And, no, I'll add this in the infobox, as there is a place for it in the infobox. I can add this to both places if I wish. Second, yes, leaders, nobody said their names, but leaders of battalios are, nevertheless, leaders within the brigade, or I'm wrong. Salehi perhaps didn't attended, but that doesn't mean anything. However, you'll need a source that he didn't participated in the first announcment, he participated in the second one which makes his pariticipation in the first announcmet logical. --Wüstenfuchs 20:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no place for it in the infobox, I keep telling you. Sopher99 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? Then how it was possible for me to add those infos in the infobox in the first place? Tell you whant, I ain't hypocritical and I will not make an exemption for the al-Tawhid Brigade. You made no good argument so far. --Wüstenfuchs 20:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What is so diffuclt to understand here. Al Tahweed is a military brigade. A military combatant. Not a gang, not a cartel, not a syndicate. Sopher99 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is what we are supposed to use.

Al-Tawhid Brigade

Sopher99 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No Sopher, no... They aren't a military unit, they are rebels. Do you understand the difference between a rebel and a soldier? The Syrian civil war is about that. --Wüstenfuchs 20:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

They are a brigade of the Free Syrian Army. They are Insurgents. Sopher99 (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

They are... but the difference between an army and them is that they have an ideology, they are volunteers, on the other hand a member of some army/military can be a fascist or a communist but he is obligated to serve in it, that is, he is a conscript. This is a difference between military and rebels, the latter one are volunteers with an ideology. --Wüstenfuchs 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sopher, are you joking? FSA are rebels not a military... --Wüstenfuchs 06:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, they are a military and they are recognized by 8 European and Arab states because The SNC recognizes them as Syria's legitimate army. Sopher99 (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, what is this? It's not so. They recognied the SNC as a legitimate representative or sole l. r. if you wish. They weren't even recognised as a government for god's sake. Find me a one source where any country recognised them as an army of Syrian people. That's simply laughable. If those 8 countries recognised them, what about other 180 countries? They are irrelevant? Logics Sopher, logics. The FSA is nothing but an armed group. --Wüstenfuchs 06:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I can sum up my response in two links.

Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades

Peshmerga

Granted Ideology is there. Okay, we keep that. But allies and enemies we don't Sopher99 (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Laughable Sopher, those aren't even WP:GA. Nevertheless, the Peshmerga is a military of the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq, so... And those Palestinians are a wing of a political party, so... again, the same thing. --Wüstenfuchs 06:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Their military wing is not recognized. Peshmerga is not recognized at all, nor is their Kurdish autonomous region recognized. My point is that allies and enemies on the infobox are arbitary and pointless, and is a clear attempt by you to say "look, they love al nusra!", why not say they love every other brigade. Sopher99 (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hamas' military wing is recognised by Hamas, and Hamas is a recognised political party in the State of Palestine, which is an observer member of the UN. Second, Kurdish autonomous region is in Iraq, recognised by Iraq. So you remove this info as you don't like it? I told you earlier, such things aren't allowed at WP. --Wüstenfuchs 06:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I can have fun making chains too. The FSA is recognized by the SNC, which is recognized by all of Europe, America, and the arab league (save Algeira and Lebanon) as at the very minimum a legitimate party in the conflict. Your particular contributions to that article are arbitrary and pointless (ie putting info that does not belong on that page), so obviously no editor would logicaly like them. Its late at night where I live, I'm ceasing this conversation until tomorrow. You can go talk to Guest on the talkpage. Sopher99 (talk)

Laughable, again. They are recognised as a representative, while the SoP is recognised as a country. --Wüstenfuchs 06:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

SOP is recognized by most countries, and only a portion recognize it as a political party, The EU states and America recognize it as a "terrorist" group. Sopher99 (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the case, it doesn't mean that they don't have allies, and it doesn't mean they do, and it doesn't mean you can't add them. The article about them is not WP:GA and can not serve as a model for future articles. --Wüstenfuchs 13:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a brigade of the FSA, not an independent organization. Putting allies and ideology is irresponsible, and does not reflect the context of information that supposed to be put on this article. Sopher99 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is a bit confusing, but I agree that the ideology and allies element should not be in the summary box. First there is no need for an ally element in the infobox since the brigade is a unit of the FSA and with the Syrian army unit articles ally information is not given. Similarly there is no need for the ideology element in the infobox since as before the Syrian army unit articles do not have such information. Also, another reason not to include a one word description for the brigade's ideology is because one word does not explain the ideology well. For non-clear information it is better for the reader to read about the material in the article as has been done. Guest2625 (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so your main argument for not adding allies and ideologies is because Syrian Army doesn't have those infos in its infobox. If you have read carefuly, there is a difference between the FSA and the SA, the SA is a military, an armed force of a country, the FSA is not. How simple is that? Also, there are factions amongst the FSA itself, every unit almost acts independently. If you look at the Battle of Aleppo, you'll find my latest edit there where I added info about the involvement of the "peace brigade", which is part of the FSA, but "doesn't take orders from above". It's the reason why we need to add ideology and allies, not all FSA units are islamists, some of them are even more extreme. FSA are rebels, with ideology, with goal, the SA are bunch of young conscripts who are in the army as they were invited to join it, thus they can not have ideology, moreover, it's forbidden for a soldier to be a member of a political party, even if it's Baath Party. --Wüstenfuchs 14:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

1 - The Free Syrian Army is an insurgency

2 - Tahweed is a main component of the Aleppo military council.

3 - The defected soldiers were never recorded as defected by the Syrian army as there are too many of them to do so. So technically they are members of the Syrian army, as there was no termination of payment or recorded discharge.

4 - Just like for the Libyan rebels, we do not put ideology or allies, in fact for no brigade of any rebel group we do so. Sopher99 (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I told you they are insurgency in the comment above. Tawhid Brigade is part of this insurgency and FSA is, you must admit (all media report this) disorganised and often its brigades act on their own. What about defected soldiers? How they fit in in this story? They defected due to their ideology, so they certainly have one. It's not the same case with Libya. --Wüstenfuchs 14:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

But the Tawhid is not part of that disorganization, even their name means unity. They are part of the Aleppo military council. Soldiers defected because they were asked to kill civilians, and because of the lack of pay and long hours, but mostly due to military sieges on their home towns. We don't put ideologies and allies for individual brigades. Sopher99 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You misuderstud me. No matter if they are part of the Aleppo military council (AMC). The AMC itself is a rebel organisation, with an ideology (!). The Tawhid Brigade rather means monotheism, English sources wrongly translate this. It's concept from Islam (see Tawhid). And their name isn't important at all. Is North Korea democratic? It is called Democratic People's Republic of Korea? I didn't say that Tawhid is disorganised from inside, but the FSA is disorganised, its units (like al-Tawhid) act almost independently. --Wüstenfuchs 14:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

North Korea's "Democratic" means ruled by people, in this case communism which is suppose to "insure the common man rules". It doesn't matter how disorganized. The FARC in columbia is disorganized. The Taliban is disorganized. Their regiments and divisions however we do not put ideologies or allies and such. I don't know why you are so heavily pursuing this. Sopher99 (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No matter about North Korea, you get the point. Um... what Taliban regiment are you talking about? You are making circles out of this discussion. I told you on your talk page, the discussion that was transferred here, that articles that aren't good articles can't be used as an example. --Wüstenfuchs 14:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a compromise in mind. Either you remove the ideology or your remove the allies and the opponents.

If they are so disorganized how can they not have every brigade in Aleppo as their allies? If they were organized we don't have to put every brigade as their ally, however we certainly couldn't include their ideology then, because they would just be subset of the FSA.

So I will allow you to keep one. Remove the ideology and keep the allies, or rf you want to keep the ideology I will have to add every single primary brigade in Aleppo (18)as their ally (or just remove the allies and opponents section). Sopher99 (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You will allow me? You are braking WP:OWN. And we resolved your adding of other FSA brigades (see the discussion). I simplyfied your action by adding that al-Tawhid is part of the FSA rather then adding every possible FSA brigade (and there are hundreds), so as it is part of the FSA it is understandible that other FSA brigades are allied to it. --Wüstenfuchs 15:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There only seems to be 2 editors here. So by me conceding I am pretty sure it is the equivalent to allowing. Regardless if the Tahwid is part of the FSA, we have no need for an ideology area, as we already describe on the FSA's page relationship with islamists. I am willing to keep either one so long as we delete (or significantly contribute) to the other to avoid hypocrisy. Sopher99 (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There is need, as some of the units are more extreme, they act independently. You would make the reader to search on the other article about the al-Tawhid's ideology or? It's like not mentioning the concentration camps in the Nazi Germany article, becuase they were already mentioned at the Holokaust article... --Wüstenfuchs 15:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The ideology is explained directly in the tahwid article. I'll restore the allies but ideology doesn't belong in the infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have source for Syrian Liberation Army and Liwa al-Umma, those aren't in Aleppo at all. They do cooperate with the FSA, but I haven't noticed their cooperation with the al-Tawhid exclusively, correct me if I'm wrong. You removed ideology, by explaining it's not neccessary, though it is, I explained the reason. And it's easier for a reader too. --Wüstenfuchs 15:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.euronews.com/2012/08/01/syria-liberation-army-describes-latest-from-aleppo/ Sopher99 (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention the al-Tawhid or Liwa al-Umma, or I'm wrong... --Wüstenfuchs 15:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The most neutral way to structure the article is to structure it like the Syrian army division articles. In those articles allies and ideology are not mentioned in the article's infobox. Guest2625 (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not, that's not what neutrality is. Syrian Army is made of conscripts, this brigade is made out of volunteers with an ideology. --Wüstenfuchs 13:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Independent analysis by the International Crisis Group which is staffed by Middle East experts states clearly on page 27 of the report that:

"Like most formations fighting under the FSA banner, [Al-Tawid Brigade] eschews any particular ideology, invoking instead a broad commitment to principles of democracy and sectarian coexistence alongside frequent professions of personal Sunni piety and distinguishing itself from Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups at the radical end of the Salafi spectrum by claiming to pursue a state of secular citizenship and cross-sectarian equality.

Apparently, the group is considered non-ideological by experts in the field, and therefore the ideological information is false in the summary box. Secondly, there are two editors to one who oppose including the ideology information in the summary box. Of course information on ideology does belong in the section of the article on that topic. Guest2625 (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you understnand that it is laughable to say there's no ideology, but then again to claim it is ok to include it in some section... You used this source as an argument they have no ideology just to remove the ideology from infobox. Also, there are other sources (a vast majority) that says they do have an ideology, and their ideology is islamism. Two users versus one doesn't make a "consensus". --Wüstenfuchs 03:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason the ideology wasn't included in the infobox is because it isn't clear what the ideology is. The infobox is for information that is not in dispute or uncertain. Guest2625 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)