Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa

This article glazes the subject too much and uses passive voice to imply things the Syrian government does are out of al-Julani's control.

Here's some concrete examples:

• is a Syrian politician, statesman, and former rebel commander A "rebel" commander? Some sources describe him as: a former fighter linked to al-Qaeda ^[1] a former member of al-Qaeda ^[2] Maybe a source review could be useful here

• vowing to protect Syria's minorities. — he ordered/oversaw the 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites
• Al-Sharaa's first year as president saw massacres targeting Syrian Alawites and clashes in southern Syria, both involving government-affiliated troops, which led to criticism. "saw massacres"? Really? Did they go to the massacre fields to watch them bloom?

• He also stated that al-Nusra Front would not target the country's Alawite minority despite its support for the Assad regime. He continued: "Our war is not a matter of revenge against the Alawites despite the fact that in Islam, they are considered to be heretics", he added.[74] A commentary on this interview, however, states that al-Sharaa also added that Alawites would be left alone as long as they abandon elements of their faith which contradict Islam.[75]

All of that turned out to be lies, I don't know why it is still in the article. If it is incouded, it should be framed in the light of current sources, i.e. "Before taking power al-Julani promised that the Alawite minorities would not be harmed, but after taking power the Syrian government forces massacred thousands of Alawites." (or something to that effect)

• Al-Sharaa urged fighters in the pro-government forces to "avoid any abuses" following reports of massacres of Alawite civilians in Latakia, and on 9 March, he announced the formation of an independent national committee of seven judges to investigate the events and violations in the Syrian coastal areas, emphasizing that the committee must submit its findings to the president within 30 days and describing the coastal violence as part of the "expected challenges."

How did that go?

And so on ... The body discusses his many war crimes and his relationship to Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but all of that is absent from the lede. I haven't made any edits to the article as this is a contentious topic and it'd be nice to have more eyes/opinions. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd support removing "statesman" which is basically meaningless. In fact, I'll just do that. As to the rest, do you have specific suggestions for changes to the lead? I think it does a pretty good job balancing the many aspects of his complex history. Remember this article is about al-Sharaa the man, not the Syrian government. As far as I know there's no evidence he ordered or supported the massacres on the coast or in Suwayda, though obviously he's responsible on some level as head of government. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

One of the descriptors in the lede should be "former Al-Qaeda leader in Syria". He had been an Al-Qaeda leader far longer than he had been a "president". I put president in quotes because he was not elected. He's a leader of a military junta but the media loce to pretend like he's the democratically-elected leader of a free, liberal and progressive Syria, when in fact the exact opposite is true.

As the emir of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and de facto leader of the Syrian Salvation Government (SSG) during the Syrian civil war, he led the Syrian opposition offensives that resulted in the fall of the Assad regime in 2024.

lol. lmao even. Nothing about the massacres committed, $10M bounty on his head, etc.

In 2012, al-Sharaa founded Jabhat al-Nusra in 2012 with the support of al-Qaeda's central command to topple the Assad regime.

This makes it sound like the goal was to "topple Assad's regime", when that was a side-effect of his/their quest to turn every country in the Middle East into Taliban's afghanistan.

HTS established the Syrian Salvation Government, a technocratic civilian administration, in the territory it controlled in Idlib Governorate.

The Al-Qaeda terrorists with a penchant for chopping off heads have an "administration" and a "technocratic government" while Assad, who oversaw a secular state with freedom of religion, had a "regime".

In this case, Wikipedia is whitewashing a brutal, murderous terrorist (this isn't a BLPVIO, this is a true fact) and trying to present him like some civilised force for Freedom and Democracy™. The guy didn't want to shake the hand of Germany's foreign minister because she was a woman.

A Reuters investigation found that they were ordered by the new Syrian government in Damascus:

A Reuters investigation has pieced together how the massacres unfolded, identifying a chain of command leading from the attackers directly to men who serve alongside Syria’s new leaders in Damascus. Reuters found nearly 1,500 Syrian Alawites were killed and dozens were missing. The investigation revealed 40 distinct sites of revenge killings, rampages and looting against the religious minority, long associated with the fallen Assad government.

Do I need to go on? I can keep pointing out every single sentence in this article. The fact is, it needs a rewrite, top to bottom. Too much emphasis is placed on his last 2-3 years of life. He wasn't born in 2024 and he had a life before the current "presidency". The article should reflect that, WP:RECENTISM. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @TurboSuperA+, I am a major contributor to the article, and I would like to explain that I am trying to balance how the subject is described in accordance with WP:LABEL, WP:IMPARTIAL. I do not support the former Al-Qaeda member who later became president and shook hands with Donald Trump. For example, in the article about Donald Trump, we do not begin the first sentence by calling him an "American convicted felon who served as president." If anyone would like to make changes to the article, you are welcome to do so. HurricaneEdgar 09:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of this issue, I would also like to invite another contributor to the article, @NeoSyria, to participate in this discussion. HurricaneEdgar 09:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+, do you have any suggestions on how we should describe this man? Or do we need to balance how we describe him in accordance with WP:WIKIVOICE? I think this may require a broader discussion through a WP:RFC before making any significant changes. HurricaneEdgar 09:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

How many times do I have to write the suggestion before it is acknowledged? I've written, twice so far, this makes a third time, that he should be described as "former Al-Qaeda" (leader, fighter, whatever) and I have provided contemporary RSes that describe him in their own voice in such a way.

Re:Trump. Trump was elected president first, then convicted of a felony, then re-elected. The felony conviction is mentioned in the lede, just after the things he is also known for, in chronological order and order of notability.

I'd argue that al-Julani is very notable for his terrorist career and it should be mentioned prominently. Here are some sources from 2024: ^{[3][4][5][6][7][8]} I can find more, if more are needed to show the notability of his very recent terrorist career.

We can also use this image. If it is an official work by the US government it can be used on Wikipedia per copyright/fair use rules.

Re:RFC I am perfectly fine with an RFC (or several). First one would be on whether he should be referred to as "former Al-Qaeda" in the first paragraph of the lede. Another could be that the former $10M bounty is also mentioned in the lede. It is still early for an RFC I think, and we should wait a bit to hear from other editors, because we might agree on some things without an RFC. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

That image is copyrighted, as discussed at Commons deletion request for Muhammad al-Jawlani.png, Commons deletion request for Abu Mohammad al-Jolani reward poster. That is why we uploaded an [alternative image] that does not show his face. Yes, I agree that this is still in the early stages of the RFC, and I agree that we should wait for other editors to comment. If this section of the discussion has not been reached by that time, the matter should be discussed further at the RFC to resolve the issue. HurricaneEdgar 10:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

You still haven't opined on whether "former Al-Qaeda [member, leader,fighter]" is appropriate for the lede. If you agree that it should be in the lede, then we don't need an RFC. I checked the profile of NeoSyria, and it says "semi-retired", so I don't think we should hold our breath. I'll put a link up at NPOVN, that board gets a lot of traffic. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe that it is inappropriate to label him in the lede of the article as a former member of al-Qaeda, even though he committed a lot of terrible actions in the past, because that is against WP:NPOV; However, mentioning his past ties to al-Qaeda elsewhere in the article is appropriate. (FYI there's already an adequate amount of words mentioning him as a former al-Qaeda fighter, so IMO we should just leave it as it was.) ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Im p sure that when people come to check on this page, they wanna read about the current President of Syria and not the former jihadist. Correct me if Im wrong but Donald Trumps wikipedia doesnt start with "the millionaire gameshow host and Home Alone actor that became President".

I really do not understand why the weird bias that user TurboSuperA+ has (its weird to call Assad regime as "secular" considering that... you know.... it very much was not) but who am I to judge?

Wikipedia should be about informing people, not framing information in order to get internet debate points Fuzera (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

when people come to check on this page, they wanna read about the current President of Syria and not the former jihadist.

They are the same person. Wikipedia doesn't pick and choose which parts of a person's life are least controversial and then focuses on those.

I really do not understand why the weird bias that user TurboSuperA+ has (its weird to call Assad regime as "secular" considering that... you know.... it very much was not)

You call it a "regime", but then call me biased? Do you call the Syrian government now "the al-Julani regime" because it very much is—he appointed himself president, then appointed the ministers and a third of the parliament.

Correct me if Im wrong but Donald Trumps wikipedia doesnt start with "the millionaire gameshow host and Home Alone actor that became President".

OK, you are wrong. It pays to check what an article says before you make such claims. This is how Donald Trump's article starts: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, Note that "media personality" is the second descriptor. It would be perfectly in line with our WP:NPOV policy to say al-Julani is the current president of Syria and former Al-Qaeda leader in the first sentence. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, Trump was also an actor but his wikipedia doesnt have that front stage.

Regarding the regime. Almost all the media refers to Assad rule as a regime. If the academic and journalistic consensus is to call it a regime, we, mere wikipedians, aren't really the ones to dispute that. Also al-Sharaa was appointed President by the Syrian Revolution Victory Conference. Do you have a source that says he appointed himself President?

And lastly, are you being genuinely obtuse or do you like just wanna win internet brownie points? I dont want to be rude but there isnt any reddit karma to be won in wikipedia you know? Fuzera (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Here's a source about him declaring himself president: Mr Sharaa, a former al-Qaeda leader turned would-be statesman, then declared himself as Syria’s interim president. The Economist. You need to read WP:NPA. I'm not going to respond to you if you're not going to be civil. Civility is Wikipedia policy. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

lol, lmao even Fuzera (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Can anyone please see WP:STICK? This talk page is for discussing the content of the article and any issues related to it. @Fuzera, you need to remain civil when arguing with other editors. Please calm down. HurricaneEdgar 03:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

And here's a reliable source that doesn't mention that he declared himself president, here's another one. The first source says that the Syrian General Command appointed him president. If al-Sharaa surely did declare himself president (clearly in violation of NPOV), then would you mind explaining why official sources, such as SANA, does not say he appointed himself? ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Syrian General Command was also responsible for appointing Asaad al-Shaibani, Mohammed al-Bashir, Murhaf Abu Qasra, and Anas Khattab, . The cited source clearly states that Ahmed al-Sharaa was appointed by the Syrian General Command, which I believe was the same body as the Military Operations Command. SANA also reported that the then-spokesman of the Military Operations Command, Colonel Hassan Abdul Ghani, stated that Leader Ahmad al-Sharaa shall assume the presidency of the country during the transitional period, carrying out the duties of the President of the Syrian Arab Republic and representing it in international forums. HurricaneEdgar 23:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If a source doesn't mention something, that doesn't mean it is disputing it. Here's more sources:

• Syria’s de facto leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, on Wednesday abolished the country’s constitution and declared himself president during a meeting of armed factions in Damascus. Washington Post
• When Sharaa officially proclaimed himself president of the new Syria this year Financial Times
• Syrian rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa has declared himself president The Australian
• Yet he remains an Islamist and likely an authoritarian. Al-Sharaa has declared himself president Washington Institute
• While he stated that he would be more comfortable if Syrians did not ask him to run for president, such sentiment did not stop him from declaring himself interim president. Middle East Forum
• Ahmad al-Sharaa has declared himself both interim president and prime minister of a supposedly “inclusive” government. He appears to be appealing to the West, but his power remains authoritarian. Hoover Institution
• DAMASCUS, Jan 29 (Reuters) - Syria's de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa was declared president for a transitional phase on Wednesday, tightening his hold on power less than two months after he led a campaign that toppled Bashar al-Assad. ... Fawaz Gerges, Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics, said the declaration had "formalized his status as the strongman ruler". "My take is that HTS and Sharaa intend to consolidate single-party Islamist rule." Reuters

TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

That is why the issue with the source is that it does not include what happened during the Syrian Revolution Victory Conference, which led to the appointment of al-Sharaa as president. I have also consistently researched who appointed him and where the appointment took place, since readers may be confused about how he became president. Different sources state that he declared himself president, while others state that he was appointed. HurricaneEdgar 03:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

In addition, this source states that he was appointed by the Syrian General Command, and it is the only source that tells us what happened at the time of his appointment as president. HurricaneEdgar 03:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Isn't HTS the dominant faction in the Syrian General Command? That would make al-Sharaa the leader of the Syrian General Command, meaning that he appointed himself. Independent, reliable sources characterised it as such, while it is no surprise that Syrian news sources didn't. I think we should rely on independent sources in this matter, not Syrian ones. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

isn’t x the dominant group in y so when it’s reported that y does something we should say x did it - this is pretty much the definition of SYNTH. Let’s stick with neutrally reporting what RSs report, as in the current version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand your x and y metaphor. We are not currently neutrally reporting what RSes say, because we're ignoring all the ones who state in their own voice that he declared himself president. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I am referring to your argument “Isn't HTS the dominant faction in the Syrian General Command? That would make—-“ wherein you ask us to do original research. You started a separate thread on the “declared himself” question below, where it is made clear that the overwhelming preponderance of RSs don’t support your formulation. Time to drop the stick BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

You should have done a web search before declaring it SYNTH, there are plenty of sources that corroborate it and state it directly:

The Syrian opposition’s military operation that led to the remarkable collapse of the Assad regime on December 8 drew attention to Hayet Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the group that led the offensive and has since assumed power.

HTS was the largest component of the operation ‘Deterrence of Aggression’

Following the collapse of the Assad regime, HTS emerged as the dominant force in Syria’s political reorganization.

The HTS-led military coalition has announced a general amnesty

There are more, I found those in 30 seconds. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

you don’t seem to have read what I wrote. I’m not disputing the facts. I’m disputing that because HTS was the main group of Syrian general command we should attribute actions of the latter to HTS instead, which is what you want. Time to drop the stick BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The horse is very much alive. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

After finding the source about his appointment, I found that CNN states that... "We announce the appointment of Commander Ahmad al-Sharaa as head of state during the transitional period. He will assume the duties of the president of the Syrian Arab Republic and represent the country in international forums,” commander Hassan Abdel Ghani, spokesman for the Syria Military Operations Command, said in a statement Wednesday" HurricaneEdgar 03:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Can I add the translated statement of the Military Operations Administration, since I am not an Arabic speaker and we need to understand what was happening at that time? This statement is from the official Twitter account of the Presidency of Syria. HurricaneEdgar 04:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This statement is from the official Twitter account of the Presidency of Syria.

That's not an independent source, and it might be a primary source as well. I also doubt its reliability. We should be using independent, secondary, reliable sources. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but my intention here is to provide a source that can also be questioned regarding the reliability of the appointment and to identify the real issue. HurricaneEdgar 04:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement Announcing the Victory of the Syrian Revolution

In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

After decades of oppression and tyranny practiced by the criminal Assad regime against the Syrian people, and after the immense sacrifices made by the heroes of the great Syrian Revolution over 14 years—during which our people offered hundreds of thousands of martyrs, the wounded, detainees, and millions of displaced persons—in a heroic epic that began in March 2011 and concluded with a glorious victory by the grace and support of Almighty Allah on the morning of the eighth of December 2024, we in the Military Operations Administration congratulate our great Syrian people on the victory of their blessed revolution, which has become the legitimate voice speaking in their name. Accordingly, we announce the following:

First: Victory of the great Syrian Revolution, and the designation of the eighth of December of every year as a national holiday.

Second: Abolition of the 2012 constitution and suspension of all exceptional laws.

Third: Dissolution of the People's Assembly formed during the era of the former regime, along with the committees emanating from it.

Fourth: Dissolution of the army of the former regime and rebuilding the Syrian army on national foundations.

Fifth: Dissolution of all security agencies affiliated with the former regime, including their branches and various names, as well as all militias established by it, and the establishment of a new security institution that safeguards the security of citizens.

Sixth: Dissolution of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party and the parties of the Progressive National Front, along with all organizations, institutions, and committees affiliated with them. Their re-establishment under any other name is prohibited, and all their assets shall revert to the Syrian state.

Seventh: In continuation of their struggle and in recognition of their role in building the new Syrian state, all military factions and revolutionary political and civil bodies shall be dissolved and integrated into state institutions.

Eighth: Commander Ahmed al-Sharaa shall assume the presidency of the country during the transitional phase and shall carry out the duties of the President of the Syrian Arab Republic and represent it in international forums.

Ninth: The President of the Republic is authorized to form a temporary legislative council for the transitional period, which shall carry out its duties until a permanent constitution for the country is adopted and comes into force.

Issued on Wednesday, 29 Rajab 1446 AH Corresponding to 29 January 2025 And praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds Military Operations Administration (This translated version was made by HurricaneEdgar, while the original Arabic version was published by the official account of the Presidency of Syria). According to SANA, the statement was made by the spokesman of the Military Operations Command, Colonel Hassan Abdul Ghani. HurricaneEdgar 04:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm concerned you're making claims not found in reliable sources. Saying when that was a side-effect of his/their quest to turn every country in the Middle East into Taliban's afghanistan is not a reasonable claim. As far as I know, Sharaa fought in Iraq and then he fought in Syria. I've never seen any reliable source claim he was at any point on a quest to turn every country into Afghanistan. The Al-Qaeda terrorists with a penchant for chopping off heads do you have any reliable sources to share showing al-Sharaa has ever beheaded anyone? The article mentions his role in al-Qaeda in the lead and covers it extensively in the body. It also covers his time leading HTS including war crimes committed by his organization. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

My charge that al-Julani personally chopped heads during his career as an internationally wanted terorrist is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

Here is an article saying that it is "unlikely" that al-Julani never harmed civilians in Iraq, while saying in the preceding sentence that the leader of the AQI had a penchant for beheadings. 1 + 1 = 2

At that time, AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq) was led by the radical Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was known for his brutality, including the beheading of kidnapped foreigners. Hence, although al-Jolani claims in a recent interview that he has never harmed any civilians in Iraq, it seems unlikely. In 2006, al-Sharaa (now known as al-Jolani) was arrested by U.S. forces and spent five years in different detention centres, among them the notorious prisons Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca.

^[9]

HTS beheaded a 12-year-old boy, but they called it an "individual error".^[10]

In a Christian village, a couple was killed during a "burglary" that ended with the man being beheaded. ^[11]

Here is an article about HTS summary executions in Idlib, for, among other things, "cursing God".^[12]

Saying "when that was a side-effect of his/their quest to turn every country in the Middle East into Taliban's afghanistan" is not a reasonable claim. On the other hand, that is a reasonable claim and one supported by sources:

In May 2018, the group was added to the State Department’s existing designation of its predecessor, the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Today, HTS can be thought of as a relatively localized Syrian terrorist organization, which retains a Salafi-jihadist ideology despite its public split from al-Qaeda in 2017.

Today, HTS maintains that it is “an independent entity that follows no organization or party, al-Qaeda or others” and has gone so far as to arrest al-Qaeda-linked individuals in the territories under its control to prove that no allegiance exists.[7] Despite these claims, the U.S. government believes that a link between the two groups remains, even calling HTS a “vehicle to advance [al-Qaeda’s] position in the Syrian uprising and to further its own goals” in its FTO designation.[8] Recent reporting by the United Nations seems to confirm that, at the very least, some communication remains

^[13]

Independent journalism organisation Syria Direct reports that HTS is behind the disappearances of activists and has shot live ammunition at protesters who accuse the group of denying services to communities that oppose it.

^[14]

Al-Julani/HTS have the same ideology as the Taliban in Afghanistan, and despite the claims of a split, both US intelligence services and the UN believe that they still communicate/coordinate.

I think I've said enough about this for now and I have provided plenty sources. I'm not gonna reply for a while, to give others a chance to give their opinions. Even if you ping me I still won't respond until some time has passed. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I added the information about the $10 million bounty on his head, as there does not seem to be any objection to mentioning it. I also added an explanation in the lead why the United States removed the bounty. In response to your comment, You still haven't opined on whether 'former Al-Qaeda member,' 'former Al-Qaeda leader,' or 'former Al-Qaeda fighter' is appropriate for the lede," I would like to hear if any other editors have an opinion on this matter, as my position for now is to remain neutral regarding how the subject should be described in the first sentence of the lead. HurricaneEdgar 14:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the second and third paragraphs of the lead already covers directly his roles in Al-Qaeda, which is perfectly adequate. It's an Americentric view to see the $10 million bounty as leadworthy - ultimately nothing came of it. The US government seeing him as someone worth placing a bounty on is worthwhile detail, but just that - detail. The focus of the lead should be on Sharaa the person, not the responses of other entities. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I share Ganesha811's concerns. This seems to be working backward from the conclusion that al-Sharaa is a bad guy and we have to describe him as a bad guy (maybe that's the best way to look at him, but that's not a discussion that should take place on Wikipedia). I agree that his role in Islamist terror organizations is a significant part of his biography and should be given attention in the lead, which it already is as of this writing. But you can't just try to collect a bunch of sources about bad things he did, let alone ones that don't even mention him! That's User:Bon courage/A POV that draws a source. As far as writing this article is concerned, I don't really care what HTS did. I care about biographical pieces on al-Sharaa and what they cover. At the same time, being president is by far his biggest claim to notability now and that's going to naturally become the largest part of the article because that's where he did the most wide-reaching stuff and the part of his life that will have the most sources published about it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

His prior affiliation with al-Qaeda should be mentioned, as it is widely documented. Sakiv (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed and indeed it is mentioned in the lead and throughout the body. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The second sentence of the lead mentions HTS, the actual organisation he led. The relationship of HTS to Al-Qaeda is not totally straightforward and if we mention Al-qaeda earlier than we do it would be misleading. It’s in the second para of the lead, which is appropriate. (In general, I support the clear consensus position on this talk page, as articulated by Ganesha, NeoSyria and others. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

For comparison, this is the second sentence in Bitannica: He was previously notorious as the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which was first formed as an affiliate of al-Qaeda, and had been widely designated as a terrorist. Looks like they're certain HTS was formed as an al-Qaeda affiliate. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes and it continues: “Since he and his organization cut ties with al-Qaeda in about 2016, he has sought to rehabilitate his image and, after becoming the leader of Syria, has taken steps toward a rapprochement with the West.” We cover this in our second para, which I think follows our manual of style - see MOS:OPEN BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, he sought to rehabilitate his image. There is no Wikipedia policy stating that the Wikipedia article should rehabilitate his image. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, and thankfully we don’t, so that’s good. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the current state of the article rehabilitates him somewhat. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for not having read this whole thread before commenting, but I would like to just remind us all here that "terrorist" is well-established to be a WP:CONTLABEL, and I would say "strongman" is as well, as its scope is even more vague and the term is mostly directed at people the speaker doesn't like. As such, Wikipedia's Manual of Style dictates that these words not be used in the article unless mentioning via in-text attribution that WP:RS widely call them that.

Whether the article violates NPOV by being too friendly to the person is another matter, but WP:BLP does dictate that we err more in that direction than in the direction of holding him accountable (especially in the case of actions he may be responsible for, but for which we don't information concretely connecting him to personally). GeoEvan (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The section Ahmed al-Sharaa#Presidency (2025–present) doesn't mention that he declared himself president, while reliable sources do. I believe that it is WP:DUE for inclusion based on Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE policies.

• Mr Sharaa, a former al-Qaeda leader turned would-be statesman, then declared himself as Syria’s interim president. The Economist

• Syria’s de facto leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, on Wednesday abolished the country’s constitution and declared himself president during a meeting of armed factions in Damascus. Washington Post

• When Sharaa officially proclaimed himself president of the new Syria this year Financial Times

• Syrian rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa has declared himself president The Australian

• Yet he remains an Islamist and likely an authoritarian. Al-Sharaa has declared himself president Washington Institute

• While he stated that he would be more comfortable if Syrians did not ask him to run for president, such sentiment did not stop him from declaring himself interim president. Middle East Forum

• Ahmad al-Sharaa has declared himself both interim president and prime minister of a supposedly “inclusive” government. He appears to be appealing to the West, but his power remains authoritarian. Hoover Institution

• DAMASCUS, Jan 29 (Reuters) - Syria's de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa was declared president for a transitional phase on Wednesday, tightening his hold on power less than two months after he led a campaign that toppled Bashar al-Assad. ... Fawaz Gerges, Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics, said the declaration had "formalized his status as the strongman ruler". "My take is that HTS and Sharaa intend to consolidate single-party Islamist rule." Reuters

TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The section Ahmed al-Sharaa#Presidency (2025–present) doesn't mention that he declared himself president, while reliable sources do. I don't think so. Here are some other reliable sources that do not claim in any way that he declared himself president. In fact, that's not how presidential successions usually work. Al-Sharaa's past as an al-Qaeda member (which FYI I do not support at all) is no excuse by sources to justify that he declared himself president.

• Reuters - Syria's Sharaa declared president for transition, consolidating his power
• CNN - Former al-Qaeda member named as Syria's president for transitional period
• BBC - Ahmed al-Sharaa named Syria's transitional president
• Enab Baladi - General Command Appoints Ahmed al-Sharaa as president of Syria
• Human Rights Watch - Submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Syrian Arab Republic;2. The transitional government is led by former HTS figures. HTS was responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes during the Syria conflict. Ahmed al-Sharaa was appointed interim president in late January 2025. Transitional authorities say that al-Sharaa will lead the country for a transitional period of five years until a permanent constitution is adopted and elections are held accordingly.
• NBC News - Syrian rebel leader Sharaa has been declared transitional president; Only says he was declared president, but that doesn't mean he declared himself president; Syria' sde facto leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, was declared president for a transitional phase on Wednesday, tightening his hold on power less than two months after he led a campaign that toppled Bashar al-Assad.
• The Arab Weekly - Syria's Ahmed al-Sharaa declared interim president as he consolidates power
• Syrian Arab News Agency - Statement by Military Operations Command announcing Syrian Revolution Victory; Official source that in no way that this proves that Sharaa declared himself president; 8 - Leader Ahmed al-Sharaa shall assume the presidency of the country during the transitional period, carrying out the duties of the President of the Syrian Arab Republic and representing it in international forums.

None of these sources have any mention of how al-Sharaa possibly "declared himself president", but only mentions of "Ahmed al-Sharaa declared president"; That ≠ he declared himself president, because IMO he didn't. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 07:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

+1 Ahmad al-Sharaa has declared himself both interim president and prime minister of a supposedly "inclusive" government. He appears to be appealing to the West, but his power remains authoritarian Note that the position of PM of Syria was occupied by Mohammed al-Bashir, and has since been abolished around two months after al-Sharaa's appointment. Therefore, this isn't 100% possible. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 07:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

CBS News stated during al-Sharaa's interview on 60 Minutes with Margaret Brennan that, In December, al-Sharaa proclaimed a new and free Syria. Leaders of the militias that toppled Assad appointed him as president of Syria the following month. Therefore, I do not understand the claim that he declared himself president when other reliable sources state that he was appointed. HurricaneEdgar 08:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Misbar, a fact-checking website, stated that the rebel coalition that deposed Assad officially declared Sharaa president of Syria's interim government, established a temporary legislative council, and disbanded all armed factions, including HTS. However, all of the sources that mention the "rebel coalition" appear to refer to the same body—the Syrian General Command, which I believe is the same as the Military Operations Command. (Refer to the translated version of the original Statement Announcing the Victory of the Syrian Revolution that I provided.) HurricaneEdgar 08:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The New York Times, citing SANA (the Syrian state-owned news agency), stated that The rebel coalition that seized control of Syria last month appointed its leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, as president of the country to preside over a transitional period, Syrian state media reported on Wednesday. A spokesman for the coalition, Col. Hassan Abdel Ghani, also declared that the Constitution had been nullified and that the legislature and army formed under the country’s deposed dictator, Bashar al-Assad, had been dissolved, according to the state news agency SANA. HurricaneEdgar 09:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

EFE, a Spanish international news agency, citing Syria TV, stated The leader of the Syrian revolution that toppled the regime of Bashar al-Assad in December and head of the de facto government, Ahmed al-Sharaa, was named on Wednesday as the country’s president during the transitional period, according to Syrian television channel SyriaTV. Sharaa was appointed «as the country’s president in the transitional phase,» the state-run channel said, quoting military official Hassan Abdel Ghani after a meeting of the various military factions. HurricaneEdgar 09:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The Guardian, which Wikipedia considers a reliable source under WP:THEGUARDIAN, stated, The former leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the Islamist rebel group which led the military operation to topple the former president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, last month, has been appointed president of Syria for a “transitional period”. The appointment of Ahmed al-Sharaa, who has been acting as the de-facto leader of the country since early December, came after a meeting of rebel faction leaders on Wednesday and was announced by a military spokesperson. HurricaneEdgar 00:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

all of the sources that mention the "rebel coalition" appear to refer to the same body—the Syrian General Command

But al-Sharaa is the leader of the coalition, because HTS is the dominant faction. HTS are the ones that took control of Damascus: As shown in the map below, as of December 2025, interim forces, primarily those of the former HTS group, controlled most of Syria’s west and population centres, including the capital Damascus and second city, Aleppo. ... Since Assad’s flight, an interim government has been declared in Syria, led by the HTS leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa. parliament.uk

This makes me think that the sources are right in characterising it as "al-Sharaa declared himself president". He went from rebel leader who took over Damascus to de facto leader of Syria (Sharaa began exercising de facto control over Syria as soon as Assad was toppled britannica) to interim president to president for the next 3-5 years. Sources have descrined him as a "strongman" and "authoritarian". I think we should follow what the sources say. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

If we follow the sources you cited, which state multiple times that he declared himself president, then we would be ignoring all of the SANA reports that were cited by international media. We are discussing how he became president, not other issues such as claims that he is a strongman or authoritarian figure. HurricaneEdgar 10:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

SANA is a Syrian news agency. They have an incentive to publish and release statements that are favourable to al-Sharaa. Foreign publications have no such incentive/obligation. We can certainly include what SANA says with attribution, but when writing about what happened in Wikivoice, we should rely on independent sources. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, he became the de facto leader and the leader of the coalition after the regime was toppled. The question, however, is how he became president and who appointed him, or whether he declared himself president. HurricaneEdgar 10:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

He became leader of the coalition and then the coalition appointed him. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Good, now you know about the mechanism of al-Sharaa’s appointment. I would like to hear other editors’ opinions on which source would be the most appropriate to use. Also, could you provide evidence for your claim that they have an incentive to publish and release statements that are favorable to al-Sharaa? HurricaneEdgar 10:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about evidence, but that's standard Wikipedia practice, because WP:RS says: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources. SANA is not independent in this context. For example, we don't rely on Indian and Pakistani sources to inform us about the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

If these sources are questionable, you should go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask other editors about the issue so they can evaluate the concerns regarding the use of SANA. If a discussion develops and there is sufficient consensus, the source may later be added to WP:RSP, the perennial sources list that records whether a source is generally considered reliable or unreliable for use on Wikipedia. HurricaneEdgar 11:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not disputing SANA's general reliability, I am saying that it isn't independent in this context and we should rely on independent sources. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

SANA isn’t independent but for basic facts about government announcements, such as someone being declared president and which branch of the government did it, it’s the most authoritative source, which is why the reliable secondary sources are citing it. In this case, I’d suggest we cite both SANA, the primary source, and one or two of the strongest secondary sources, eg Reuters and BBC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The secondary sources are attributing their statements, not saying it in their own voice. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hoover Institute, Middle East Forum, and Washington Institute are partisan think tanks - poor sources (MEF is generally unreliable I think) - whereas Reuters, a good source, supports “was declared”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, but we still have the Financial Times, Washington Post, The Economist, The Australian saying it in their own voice that he declared himself president. We can't ignore them per WP:BALANCE. Reuters cites a subject-matter expert who says that the declaration had "formalized his status as the strongman ruler". TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I think overall, it's a reasonable point. The exact circumstances are murky and the truth is that while he was obviously de facto running Syria after Assad's fall, it wasn't a guarantee he would become President. It's not *literally* true that he declared himself President - there was a declaration by a group, made by another individual - but politically, it seems clear he stage-managed the process per reliable sources. Do you have proposed alternative wording for the lead or body? —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

It’s a reasonable point. But the overwhelming preponderance of RSs say was declared president by the rebel coalition’s command, so I’d be opposed to changing it on the basis of a small minority of sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I am very much of the opinion that wikipedia doesnt have the competency to act as the choser of what news publications say or dont say. Syria just came out of a civil war and the transition process is complex and not simple. News outlets get stuff wrong all the time or summarize information for the readers sake (outside of academics and wikipedia, the average person doesnt really care about how al-sharaa became president, just that he is president).

Furthermore, these publications and news agencies arent peer reviewed unlike academic works. It would be much better for the article to say that al-Sharaa *became* President of Syria, and than have a line or 2 of text after explaining that certain publications mentioned that he declared himself such and others that say he was appointed such. Eventually a study or academic work will come out with accurate information about the sequence of events that lead to al-Sharaa becoming President. Till than I doubt wikipedians should be acting like this. Fuzera (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No objection to “became”, which is neutral and uncontestable BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t understand the dispute to be over whether he’s a strongman leader, but who declared him president. Reuters says the Military Operations Command declared him such, and the expert they cite doesn’t contest this. So Reuters supports the status quo. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)